On 3/14/23 09:22, Baoquan He wrote:
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.
Good point, I'll update the cover letter to reflect this.
eric
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
