lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Mar]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v19 2/7] crash: add generic infrastructure for crash hotplug support
    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.

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2023-03-27 00:59    [W:5.371 / U:0.012 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site