Hi Lianbo,
On 1/22/2019 3:03 AM, Lianbo Jiang wrote:
> It will be used to store the sme mask for crashed kernel, the
> sme_mask denotes whether the old memory is encrypted or not.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lianbo Jiang <lijiang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> makedumpfile.c | 3 +++
> makedumpfile.h | 1 +
> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/makedumpfile.c b/makedumpfile.c
> index 8923538..a03aaa1 100644
> --- a/makedumpfile.c
> +++ b/makedumpfile.c
> @@ -1743,6 +1743,7 @@ get_structure_info(void)
> ENUM_NUMBER_INIT(NR_FREE_PAGES, "NR_FREE_PAGES");
> ENUM_NUMBER_INIT(N_ONLINE, "N_ONLINE");
> ENUM_NUMBER_INIT(pgtable_l5_enabled, "pgtable_l5_enabled");
> + ENUM_NUMBER_INIT(sme_mask, "sme_mask");
This is useless because the sme_mask is not enum number.
Please remove it.
And, dividing this patchset into the two patches doesn't make sense
to me in this case. Could you merge them into a patch?
Thanks,
Kazu
>
> ENUM_NUMBER_INIT(PG_lru, "PG_lru");
> ENUM_NUMBER_INIT(PG_private, "PG_private");
> @@ -2276,6 +2277,7 @@ write_vmcoreinfo_data(void)
> WRITE_NUMBER("NR_FREE_PAGES", NR_FREE_PAGES);
> WRITE_NUMBER("N_ONLINE", N_ONLINE);
> WRITE_NUMBER("pgtable_l5_enabled", pgtable_l5_enabled);
> + WRITE_NUMBER("sme_mask", sme_mask);
>
> WRITE_NUMBER("PG_lru", PG_lru);
> WRITE_NUMBER("PG_private", PG_private);
> @@ -2672,6 +2674,7 @@ read_vmcoreinfo(void)
> READ_NUMBER("NR_FREE_PAGES", NR_FREE_PAGES);
> READ_NUMBER("N_ONLINE", N_ONLINE);
> READ_NUMBER("pgtable_l5_enabled", pgtable_l5_enabled);
> + READ_NUMBER("sme_mask", sme_mask);
>
> READ_NUMBER("PG_lru", PG_lru);
> READ_NUMBER("PG_private", PG_private);
> diff --git a/makedumpfile.h b/makedumpfile.h
> index 73813ed..e97b2e7 100644
> --- a/makedumpfile.h
> +++ b/makedumpfile.h
> @@ -1912,6 +1912,7 @@ struct number_table {
> long NR_FREE_PAGES;
> long N_ONLINE;
> long pgtable_l5_enabled;
> + long sme_mask;
>
> /*
> * Page flags
> --
> 2.17.1
>
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
