On 26/07/2022 10:28, Xianting Tian wrote: > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe > > 在 2022/7/26 下午4:16, Xianting Tian 写道: >> >> 在 2022/7/26 下午4:01, Conor.Dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 写道: >>> On 26/07/2022 08:54, tianxianting wrote: >>>> 在 2022/7/26 上午1:13, Conor.Dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 写道: >>>>> That said, this does not apply to riscv/for-next: >>>>> b4 shazam 20220725014539.1037627-1-xianting.tian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>>> Grabbing thread from >>>>> lore.kernel.org/all/20220725014539.1037627-1-xianting.tian%40linux.alibaba.com/t.mbox.gz >>>>> Checking for newer revisions on https://lore.kernel.org/all/ >>>>> Analyzing 6 messages in the thread >>>>> Checking attestation on all messages, may take a moment... >>>>> --- >>>>> [PATCH v2 1/5] RISC-V: use __smp_processor_id() instead of >>>>> smp_processor_id() >>>>> [PATCH v2 2/5] RISC-V: Add arch_crash_save_vmcoreinfo support >>>>> [PATCH v2 3/5] riscv: Add modules to virtual kernel memory >>>>> layout dump >>>>> [PATCH v2 4/5] RISC-V: Fixup getting correct current pc >>>>> [PATCH v2 5/5] riscv: crash_core: Export kernel vm layout, >>>>> phys_ram_base >>>>> --- >>>>> Total patches: 5 >>>>> --- >>>>> Applying: RISC-V: use __smp_processor_id() instead of >>>>> smp_processor_id() >>>>> Applying: RISC-V: Add arch_crash_save_vmcoreinfo support >>>>> Patch failed at 0002 RISC-V: Add arch_crash_save_vmcoreinfo support >>>> patch 2 apply is OK for me, I don't know why you failed :( >>>> Do you have more detals for this? >>>> >>> What did you apply it to? It does not apply for me to riscv/for-next: >>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/riscv/linux.git/log/?h=for-next >>> >> >> This 5 patches are based on the master branch of below git: >> >> https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git >> >> >> "git am 0002-RISC-V-Add-arch_crash_save_vmcoreinfo-support.patch" to >> this git is ok for me. >> >> All is correct? > > I figured out the reason, there is one difference in > arch/riscv/kernel/Makefile between riscv/for-next and torvalds/linux. > > For riscv/for-next, in line 81 of arch/riscv/kernel/Makefile, it is: > > obj-$(CONFIG_KEXEC) += kexec_relocate.o crash_save_regs.o > machine_kexec.o > > But for torvalds/linux, in line 81 of arch/riscv/kernel/Makefile, it is: > > obj-$(CONFIG_KEXEC_CORE) += kexec_relocate.o > crash_save_regs.o machine_kexec.o > > torvalds/linux is newer than riscv/for-next, commit 3a66a08759 > ("RISC-V: kexec: Fix build error without CONFIG_KEXEC") added > "CONFIG_KEXEC_CORE" for torvalds/linux, But riscv/for-next > > doesn't contain the commit. Ah right, since it's late in the cycle (mw is next week) maybe it's best to wait for rc1 then and rebase when for-next & fixes have been synced. Conflict doesn't seem to hard to sort out for those who use kexec ;) Thanks, Conor.
