On 20/01/2025 11:29, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 at 11:50, Usama Arif <usamaarif642@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 20/01/2025 10:32, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 at 11:27, Usama Arif <usamaarif642@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>> ... >>>> Hi Ard, >>>> >>>> Just wanted to check how should we proceed forward? Should we try and fix the warning >>>> and corruption during kexec as done in this series or not initialize memory attributes >>>> table at all in kexec boot? I would prefer fixing the issues as in this series. >>>> >>> >>> I would prefer kexec boot on x86 to disregard the memory attributes >>> table entirely. >> >> Would you like Dave to send something like >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/CALu+AoS8tb=HgaybDw5OG4A1QbOXHvuidpu0ynmz-nE1nBqzTA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ >> on the mailing list (wrapped in ifdef CONFIG_X86_64) >> > > I prefer this approach. and no need for the ifdef, this is x86 > specific code, and the memory attributes table is already ignored > entirely on 32-bit x86 iirc ah yes, I ignored the file name when reviewing it and just focused on the function :) Will wait for Dave to send it. Thanks, Usama
