On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 12:01:11PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 01:21:44PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:54:05AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 03:36:28PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:32:48AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 01:36:01PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > > > > > > @@ -22,6 +25,7 @@ > > > > > > extern const unsigned char arm64_relocate_new_kernel[]; > > > > > > extern const unsigned long arm64_relocate_new_kernel_size; > > > > > > > > > > > > +static bool in_crash_kexec; > > > > > > > > > > Do you actually need this bool? Why not call kexec_crash_loaded() instead? > > > > > > > > The two have different meanings: > > > > "in_crash_kexec" indicates that kdump is taking place, while > > > > kexec_crash_loaded() tells us only whether crash dump kernel has been > > > > loaded or not. > > > > > > > > It is crucial to distinguish them especially for machine_kexec() > > > > which can be called on normal kexec even if kdump has been set up. > > > > > > Ah, I see. So how about just doing: > > > > > > if (kimage == kexec_crash_image) > > > > > > in machine_kexec? > > > > Yeah, it should work. > > Do you want to merge the following hunk, > > or expect that I will re-send the whole patch series > > (with other changes if any)? > > Thanks, I'll fold it in and shout if I run into any problems. My plan is > to queue this for 4.11. Given the DT discussion with Mark, I assume you'll post a new version with this rolled in. Will
