On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 02:26:27PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> On 04/28/16 at 10:28am, Russell King wrote:
> > diff --git a/include/linux/kexec.h b/include/linux/kexec.h
> > index 52a3a221bcb2..99cb9dac7909 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/kexec.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/kexec.h
> > @@ -318,6 +318,44 @@ int __weak arch_kexec_apply_relocations_add(const Elf_Ehdr *ehdr,
> > int __weak arch_kexec_apply_relocations(const Elf_Ehdr *ehdr, Elf_Shdr *sechdrs,
> > unsigned int relsec);
> >
> > +#ifndef page_to_boot_pfn
> > +static inline unsigned long page_to_boot_pfn(struct page *page)
> > +{
> > + return page_to_pfn(page);
> > +}
> > +#endif
>
> I am thinking if it's appropriate to introduce a new concept which only
> exists in a certain system of a certain ARCH. Is it unavoidable? If have
> to can we name it as kexec_page_to_pfn/kexec_pfn_to_page, etc? People
> might not need to know about boot view physical address and kernel view
> physical address things when they just want to understand kexec
> implementation related to one ARCH except of ARM, even related to ARM
> but not Keystone 2.
Well, what do you suggest we do instead?
Eric, please get involved in this discussion, as this was your idea.
--
RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.
