lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Aug]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 2/6] powerpc: kexec_file: Add buffer hand-over support for the next kernel
On 08/22/16 at 12:38am, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> Am Montag, 22 August 2016, 11:21:35 schrieb Dave Young:
> > On 08/13/16 at 12:18am, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/machine_kexec_64.c
> > > b/arch/powerpc/kernel/machine_kexec_64.c index
> > > a484a6346146..190c652e49b7 100644
> > > --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/machine_kexec_64.c
> > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/machine_kexec_64.c
> > > @@ -490,6 +490,60 @@ int arch_kimage_file_post_load_cleanup(struct
> > > kimage *image)>
> > > return image->fops->cleanup(image->image_loader_data);
> > >
> > > }
> > >
> > > +bool kexec_can_hand_over_buffer(void)
> > > +{
> > > + return true;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +int arch_kexec_add_handover_buffer(struct kimage *image,
> > > + unsigned long load_addr, unsigned long
> size)
> > > +{
> > > + image->arch.handover_buffer_addr = load_addr;
> > > + image->arch.handover_buffer_size = size;
> > > +
> > > + return 0;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +int kexec_get_handover_buffer(void **addr, unsigned long *size)
> > > +{
> > > + int ret;
> > > + u64 start_addr, end_addr;
> > > +
> > > + ret = of_property_read_u64(of_chosen,
> > > + "linux,kexec-handover-buffer-start",
> > > + &start_addr);
> > > + if (ret == -EINVAL)
> > > + return -ENOENT;
> > > + else if (ret)
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > +
> > > + ret = of_property_read_u64(of_chosen,
> > > "linux,kexec-handover-buffer-end", +
> &end_addr);
> > > + if (ret == -EINVAL)
> > > + return -ENOENT;
> > > + else if (ret)
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > +
> > > + *addr = __va(start_addr);
> > > + /* -end is the first address after the buffer. */
> > > + *size = end_addr - start_addr;
> > > +
> > > + return 0;
> > > +}
> >
> > This depends on dtb, so if IMA want to extend it to arches like x86 in
> > the future you will have to think about other way to pass it.
> >
> > How about think about a general way now?
>
> The only general way I can think of is by adding a kernel command line
> parameter which the first kernel would pass to the second kernel, but IMHO
> that is ugly, because such parameter wouldn't be useful to a user, and it
> would also be something that, from the perspective of the user, would
> magically appear in the kernel command line of the second kernel...

Sorry I just brought up the question, actually I have no idea either.
Maybe we have to do this with arch specific ways..

Thanks
Dave

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-09-17 09:57    [W:0.055 / U:0.472 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site