Re: linux-next: Tree for Dec 1 (riscv, crash_core)

[Randy Dunlap]

Hi,

On 12/3/23 18:10, Baoquan He wrote:
> eric_devolder@xxxxxxxxx, ignat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
> 	Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> 	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> 	linux-riscv <linux-riscv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> 	kexec <kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Bcc: bhe@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Dec 1 (riscv, crash_core)
> Reply-To: 
> In-Reply-To: <bbd1bbfb-c482-433d-bce9-2b591b8e855e@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> On 12/01/23 at 11:53am, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11/30/23 18:37, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Changes since 20231130:
>>>
>>
>> on riscv 32-bit or 64-bit, with
>> # CONFIG_MMU is not set
> 

[]

> I made two patches to decouple the kexec/crash code with CONFIG_MMU. Not
> sure if risc-v wants that.
> 
> Or we can simply add dependency on MMU for ARCH_SUPPORTS_CRASH_DUMP.
> Then when CONFIG_MMU=n, CONFIG_CRASH_DUMP, CONFIG_KEXEC_CORE,
> CONFIG_CRASH_CORE will be unset too. Please help check which one need be
> taken.
> 
> 
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/Kconfig b/arch/riscv/Kconfig
> index 24c1799e2ec4..03d290da7262 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/riscv/Kconfig
> @@ -708,6 +708,7 @@ config ARCH_SUPPORTS_KEXEC_PURGATORY
>  
>  config ARCH_SUPPORTS_CRASH_DUMP
>  	def_bool y
> +	depends on MMU=y
>  
>  config ARCH_HAS_GENERIC_CRASHKERNEL_RESERVATION
>  	def_bool CRASH_CORE
> 

That works if the RISC-V folks prefer it.


Tested-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> # build-tested

Thanks.

-- 
~Randy