Marc, Dave On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 09:06:54AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > Hi Dave, > > On 17/05/16 06:42, Dave Young wrote: > > Marc, it has been discussed for long time, I think kdump code can be > > logically splitted from this series so that we can get the kexec > > done first? > > The basis for kexec are already on their way to mainline, as part of the > hibernate series that James has put together. > > I'd expect someone to: > > 1) rebase the remaining kexec/kdump patches based on the current > arm64/for-next/core, Done. At the time of last week. The only issue that I have now is a support for KASLR, but this is not a kernel issue, but tool's. I'm now talking with Dave Anderson (RedHat) about how we should fix it. > 2) post these patches when -rc1 gets cut in two weeks from now, Yes, we are planning to do so. > 3) address the review comments in a timely manner, I'd like to expect the code to be reviewed in a timely manner, too. In v4.6, we have not got any comments (nor ack's) on kexec/kdump-specific part of patches. If this happens again, it will make the turnaround of our re-spinning even longer. > 4) update the series once a week so that we see some actual progress Yes if we have updates. > If this happens, I can't see any reason why this code wouldn't get > merged. But keeping kexec and kdump together is not what has prevented > the code from getting merged until now. Yeah, agree. Thanks, -Takahiro AKASHI > > Thanks, > > M. > > > > On 04/01/16 at 11:39am, Geoff Levand wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Fri, 2016-04-01 at 09:59 +0800, Dave Young wrote: > >>> Geoff, for easier to review maybe you can send kexec patches first > >>> then AKASHI Takahiro > >>> can send the kdump patches as a standalone patchset? > >> > >> Marc Zyngier specifically asked for an integrated set > >> of patches for easier review. I will keep it that way > >> for now. > >> > >> -Geoff > > > > > -- > Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
