On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 11:40:16AM +0800, Mingzheng Xing wrote:
On 4/23/24 21:12, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 10:55:44PM +0800, Mingzheng Xing wrote:
On 4/19/24 21:58, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 08:26:07PM +0800, Mingzheng Xing wrote:
On 4/19/24 18:44, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 04:56:47PM +0800, Mingzheng Xing wrote: > This reverts commit 1d6cd2146c2b58bc91266db1d5d6a5f9632e14c0 which has been > merged into the mainline commit 39365395046f ("riscv: kdump: use generic > interface to simplify crashkernel reservation"), but the latter's series of > patches are not included in the 6.6 branch. > > This will result in the loss of Crash kernel data in /proc/iomem, and kdump > loading the kernel will also cause an error: > > ``` > Memory for crashkernel is not reserved > Please reserve memory by passing"crashkernel=Y@X" parameter to kernel > Then try to loading kdump kernel > ``` > > After revert this patch, verify that it works properly on QEMU riscv. > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/ZSiQRDGLZk7lpakE@MiWiFi-R3L-srv > Signed-off-by: Mingzheng Xing xingmingzheng@iscas.ac.cn > ---
I do not understand, what branch is this for? Why have you not cc:ed any of the original developers here? Why does Linus's tree not have the same problem? And the first sentence above does not make much sense as a 6.6 change is merged into 6.7?
Sorry, I'll try to explain it more clearly.
This commit 1d6cd2146c2b ("riscv: kdump: fix crashkernel reserving problem on RISC-V") should not have existed because this patch has been merged into another larger patch [1]. Here is that complete series:
What "larger patch"? It is in Linus's tree, so it's not part of something different, right? I'm confused.
Hi, Greg
The email Cc:ed to author Chen Jiahao was bounced by the system, so maybe we can wait for Baoquan He to confirm.
This is indeed a bit confusing. The Fixes: tag in 1d6cd2146c2b58 is a false reference. If I understand correctly, this is similar to the following scenario:
A Fixes B, B doesn't go into linus mainline. C contains A, C goes into linus mainline 6.7, and C has more reconstruction code. but A goes into 6.6, so it doesn't make sense for A to be in the mainline, and there's no C in 6.6 but there's an A, thus resulting in an incomplete code that creates an error.
The link I quoted [1] shows that Baoquan had expressed an opinion on this at the time.
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/ZSiQRDGLZk7lpakE@MiWiFi-R3L-srv [1]
I'm sorry, but I still do not understand what I need to do here for a stable branch. Do I need to apply something? Revert something? Something else?
Hi, Greg
I saw Baoquan's reply in thread[1], thanks Baoquan for confirming.
So I think the right thing to do would be just to REVERT the commit 1d6cd2146c2b ("riscv: kdump: fix crashkernel reserving problem on RISC-V") in the 6.6.y branch, which is exactly the patch I submitted. If I need to make changes to my commit message, feel free to let me know and I'll post the second version.
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/stable/ZihbAYMOI4ylazpt@MiWiFi-R3L-srv [1]
Can someone just send me a patch series showing EXACTLY what needs to be done here, as I am _still_ confused.
thanks,
greg k-h