Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] kexec: framework and i386 (Take XIV) - Horms - com.xensource.lists.xen-ia64-devel

17 messages in com.xensource.lists.xen-ia64-develRe: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] kexec: fr...

From	Sent On	Attachments
Horms	31 Aug 2006 00:42	.patch, .patch, .patch, 3 more
Akio Takebe	31 Aug 2006 01:55
Horms	31 Aug 2006 19:55
Akio Takebe	01 Sep 2006 01:41
Akio Takebe	01 Sep 2006 01:45
Horms	01 Sep 2006 03:20
Akio Takebe	04 Sep 2006 14:45
Kazuo Moriwaka	05 Sep 2006 04:43
Horms	05 Sep 2006 06:05
Horms	27 May 2007 22:28
Akio Takebe	27 May 2007 23:24
Horms	28 May 2007 18:05
Ian Campbell	29 May 2007 02:03
Akio Takebe	31 May 2007 03:43
Keir Fraser	31 May 2007 03:49
Akio Takebe	31 May 2007 04:07
Akio Takebe	31 May 2007 04:17

Subject:	Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] kexec: framework and i386 (Take XIV)
From:	Horms (hor...@verge.net.au)
Date:	05/27/2007 10:28:12 PM
List:	com.xensource.lists.xen-ia64-devel

[ Ian Campbell added to CC list ]

On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 06:45:35AM +0900, Akio Takebe wrote:

Hi, Horms

I tested the following patch with Horms kexec patch.

My tests is: push NMI bottun after loading kdump kernel.

The results is: OK, I could get vmcore

Hi Takebe-san,

this patch seems ok to me, but it seems that it never went into the tree. Ian, what are your thoughts on it?

diff -r b688d4a68a3e xen/arch/x86/traps.c --- a/xen/arch/x86/traps.c Tue Aug 22 14:59:16 2006 +0100 +++ b/xen/arch/x86/traps.c Tue Sep 05 06:37:49 2006 +0900 @@ -105,6 +105,8 @@ static int debug_stack_lines = 20; static int debug_stack_lines = 20; integer_param("debug_stack_lines", debug_stack_lines);

+extern void crash_kexec(struct cpu_user_regs *regs); + #ifdef CONFIG_X86_32 #define stack_words_per_line 8 #define ESP_BEFORE_EXCEPTION(regs) ((unsigned long *)&regs->esp) @@ -1611,8 +1613,10 @@ asmlinkage void do_nmi(struct cpu_user_r mem_parity_error(regs); else if ( reason & 0x40 ) io_check_error(regs); - else if ( !nmi_watchdog ) + else if ( !nmi_watchdog ){ + crash_kexec(NULL); unknown_nmi_error((unsigned char)(reason&0xff)); + } } }

Best Regards,

On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 05:45:59PM +0900, Akio Takebe wrote:

Hi, Horms

That seems like a good idea to me. Though I think you are missing { }. Can you test to see if this works?

Oops, You're right. But I think unknown_nmi_error() is not called, because crash_kexec() is called before that.

Sorry. In the only case of CONFIG_KEXEC=y, the above is right.

Yes, I think that is the case. I will put your patch into the kexec series, as I think that it is a worthy addition.