| Message ID | 20220725014539.1037627-1-xianting.tian@linux.alibaba.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Fixups to work with crash tool | expand |
On 25/07/2022 02:45, Xianting Tian wrote: > [RESEND PATCH V2 0/5] Fixups to work with crash tool FWIW, this is not a "resend" - there's at least a commit message difference here so this should have been v3. Also your cover letter was not the one generated for the patches you actually sent since it still mentions "riscv64" in the subject line for patch 5. That said, this does not apply to riscv/for-next: b4 shazam 20220725014539.1037627-1-xianting.tian@linux.alibaba.com 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 When you fix that, could you also pick either "riscv" or "RISC-V" as a prefix the series? Thanks, Conor. > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe > > I ever sent the patch 1 in the link: > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-riscv/patch/20220708073150.352830-3-xianting.tian@linux.alibaba.com/ > And patch 2,3 in the link: > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-riscv/patch/20220714113300.367854-2-xianting.tian@linux.alibaba.com/ > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-riscv/patch/20220714113300.367854-3-xianting.tian@linux.alibaba.com/ > > This patch series just put these patches together, and with two new patch 4, 5. > these five patches are the fixups for machine_kexec, kernel mode PC for vmcore > and improvements for vmcoreinfo and memory layout dump. > > The main changes in the five patchs as below, > Patch 1: use __smp_processor_id() instead of smp_processor_id() to cleanup > the console prints. > Patch 2: Add VM layout, va bits, ram base to vmcoreinfo, which can simplify > the development of crash tool as ARM64 already did > (arch/arm64/kernel/crash_core.c). > Patch 3: Add modules to virtual kernel memory layout dump. > Patch 4: Fixup to get correct kernel mode PC for vmcore. > Patch 5: Updates vmcoreinfo.rst. > > With these 5 patches(patch 2 is must), crash tool can work well to analyze > a vmcore. The patches for crash tool for RISCV64 is in the link: > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/20220718025346.411758-1-xianting.tian@linux.alibaba.com/ > > Changes v1 -> v2: > 1, remove the patch "Add a fast call path of crash_kexec()" from this series > of patches, as it already applied to riscv git. > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/riscv/linux.git/commit/?h=for-next&id=3f1901110a89b0e2e13adb2ac8d1a7102879ea98 > 2, add 'Reviewed-by' based on the comments of v1. > > Xianting Tian (5): > RISC-V: use __smp_processor_id() instead of smp_processor_id() > RISC-V: Add arch_crash_save_vmcoreinfo support > riscv: Add modules to virtual kernel memory layout dump > RISC-V: Fixup getting correct current pc > riscv64: crash_core: Export kernel vm layout, phys_ram_base > > .../admin-guide/kdump/vmcoreinfo.rst | 31 +++++++++++++++++++ > arch/riscv/kernel/Makefile | 1 + > arch/riscv/kernel/crash_core.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++ > arch/riscv/kernel/crash_save_regs.S | 2 +- > arch/riscv/kernel/machine_kexec.c | 2 +- > arch/riscv/mm/init.c | 4 +++ > 6 files changed, 67 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 arch/riscv/kernel/crash_core.c > > -- > 2.17.1 > > > _______________________________________________ > linux-riscv mailing list > linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
在 2022/7/26 上午1:13, Conor.Dooley@microchip.com 写道: > On 25/07/2022 02:45, Xianting Tian wrote: >> [RESEND PATCH V2 0/5] Fixups to work with crash tool > FWIW, this is not a "resend" - there's at least a commit message > difference here so this should have been v3. Also your cover letter > was not the one generated for the patches you actually sent since > it still mentions "riscv64" in the subject line for patch 5. Sorry for this, my modification this time is still not thorough enough, "riscv64" still exist :( I will use V4 for next fix. > > That said, this does not apply to riscv/for-next: > b4 shazam 20220725014539.1037627-1-xianting.tian@linux.alibaba.com > 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? > When you fix that, could you also pick either "riscv" or "RISC-V" as a > prefix the series? thanks for the comments, I will fix it in V4. > Thanks, > Conor. > >> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe >> >> I ever sent the patch 1 in the link: >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-riscv/patch/20220708073150.352830-3-xianting.tian@linux.alibaba.com/ >> And patch 2,3 in the link: >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-riscv/patch/20220714113300.367854-2-xianting.tian@linux.alibaba.com/ >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-riscv/patch/20220714113300.367854-3-xianting.tian@linux.alibaba.com/ >> >> This patch series just put these patches together, and with two new patch 4, 5. >> these five patches are the fixups for machine_kexec, kernel mode PC for vmcore >> and improvements for vmcoreinfo and memory layout dump. >> >> The main changes in the five patchs as below, >> Patch 1: use __smp_processor_id() instead of smp_processor_id() to cleanup >> the console prints. >> Patch 2: Add VM layout, va bits, ram base to vmcoreinfo, which can simplify >> the development of crash tool as ARM64 already did >> (arch/arm64/kernel/crash_core.c). >> Patch 3: Add modules to virtual kernel memory layout dump. >> Patch 4: Fixup to get correct kernel mode PC for vmcore. >> Patch 5: Updates vmcoreinfo.rst. >> >> With these 5 patches(patch 2 is must), crash tool can work well to analyze >> a vmcore. The patches for crash tool for RISCV64 is in the link: >> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/20220718025346.411758-1-xianting.tian@linux.alibaba.com/ >> >> Changes v1 -> v2: >> 1, remove the patch "Add a fast call path of crash_kexec()" from this series >> of patches, as it already applied to riscv git. >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/riscv/linux.git/commit/?h=for-next&id=3f1901110a89b0e2e13adb2ac8d1a7102879ea98 >> 2, add 'Reviewed-by' based on the comments of v1. >> >> Xianting Tian (5): >> RISC-V: use __smp_processor_id() instead of smp_processor_id() >> RISC-V: Add arch_crash_save_vmcoreinfo support >> riscv: Add modules to virtual kernel memory layout dump >> RISC-V: Fixup getting correct current pc >> riscv64: crash_core: Export kernel vm layout, phys_ram_base >> >> .../admin-guide/kdump/vmcoreinfo.rst | 31 +++++++++++++++++++ >> arch/riscv/kernel/Makefile | 1 + >> arch/riscv/kernel/crash_core.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++ >> arch/riscv/kernel/crash_save_regs.S | 2 +- >> arch/riscv/kernel/machine_kexec.c | 2 +- >> arch/riscv/mm/init.c | 4 +++ >> 6 files changed, 67 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> create mode 100644 arch/riscv/kernel/crash_core.c >> >> -- >> 2.17.1 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> linux-riscv mailing list >> linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org >> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
On 26/07/2022 08:54, tianxianting wrote: > > 在 2022/7/26 上午1:13, Conor.Dooley@microchip.com 写道: >> That said, this does not apply to riscv/for-next: >> b4 shazam 20220725014539.1037627-1-xianting.tian@linux.alibaba.com >> 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 Thanks, Conor.
在 2022/7/26 下午4:01, Conor.Dooley@microchip.com 写道: > On 26/07/2022 08:54, tianxianting wrote: >> 在 2022/7/26 上午1:13, Conor.Dooley@microchip.com 写道: >>> That said, this does not apply to riscv/for-next: >>> b4 shazam 20220725014539.1037627-1-xianting.tian@linux.alibaba.com >>> 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? > > Thanks, > Conor. >
在 2022/7/26 下午4:16, Xianting Tian 写道: > > 在 2022/7/26 下午4:01, Conor.Dooley@microchip.com 写道: >> On 26/07/2022 08:54, tianxianting wrote: >>> 在 2022/7/26 上午1:13, Conor.Dooley@microchip.com 写道: >>>> That said, this does not apply to riscv/for-next: >>>> b4 shazam 20220725014539.1037627-1-xianting.tian@linux.alibaba.com >>>> 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. > >> >> Thanks, >> Conor. >>
在 2022/7/26 下午5:28, Xianting Tian 写道: > > 在 2022/7/26 下午4:16, Xianting Tian 写道: >> >> 在 2022/7/26 下午4:01, Conor.Dooley@microchip.com 写道: >>> On 26/07/2022 08:54, tianxianting wrote: >>>> 在 2022/7/26 上午1:13, Conor.Dooley@microchip.com 写道: >>>>> That said, this does not apply to riscv/for-next: >>>>> b4 shazam 20220725014539.1037627-1-xianting.tian@linux.alibaba.com >>>>> 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. Hi Dooley I think riscv git needs to be updated from linus git, and then I think V4 can be applied normally. V4: https://lkml.org/lkml/2022/7/26/317 > > >> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Conor. >>>
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@microchip.com 写道: >>> On 26/07/2022 08:54, tianxianting wrote: >>>> 在 2022/7/26 上午1:13, Conor.Dooley@microchip.com 写道: >>>>> That said, this does not apply to riscv/for-next: >>>>> b4 shazam 20220725014539.1037627-1-xianting.tian@linux.alibaba.com >>>>> 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.
在 2022/7/26 下午5:42, Conor.Dooley@microchip.com 写道: > 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@microchip.com 写道: >>>> On 26/07/2022 08:54, tianxianting wrote: >>>>> 在 2022/7/26 上午1:13, Conor.Dooley@microchip.com 写道: >>>>>> That said, this does not apply to riscv/for-next: >>>>>> b4 shazam 20220725014539.1037627-1-xianting.tian@linux.alibaba.com >>>>>> 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 ;) Okay, thanks. > > Thanks, > Conor. >