On 03/14/23 at 08:28am, Eric DeVolder wrote: ...... > > > +static int crash_memhp_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val, void *v) > > > +{ > > > + switch (val) { > > > + case MEM_ONLINE: > > > + crash_handle_hotplug_event(KEXEC_CRASH_HP_ADD_MEMORY, > > > + KEXEC_CRASH_HP_INVALID_CPU); > > > + break; > > > + > > > + case MEM_OFFLINE: > > > + crash_handle_hotplug_event(KEXEC_CRASH_HP_REMOVE_MEMORY, > > > + KEXEC_CRASH_HP_INVALID_CPU); > > > + break; > > > + } > > > + return NOTIFY_OK; > > > +} > > > + > > > +static struct notifier_block crash_memhp_nb = { > > > + .notifier_call = crash_memhp_notifier, > > > + .priority = 0 > > > +}; > > > + > > > > Because for_each_possible_cpu() is taken in > > crash_prepare_elf64_headers(), x86 doesn't need to respond to cpu > > hotplug or doesn't do anything with this patchset. This cpu part in > > infrastructure is only for the later powerpc usage, right? > > That is true, yes. Given this patchset is aimed at crash hotplug on x86, while obviously it does't need to have the cpu hotplug support on x86 since the for_each_possible_cpu() adjustment. People looking into this may be confused if they don't follow the discussion thread of v18. Do we need to mention this in cover letter or somewhere else? I could miss that though it is has been told, please ignore this if yes. _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec