On 12/8/21 11:13 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:

On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 08:46:35PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote:

quoted

Chen Zhou (10):
   x86: kdump: replace the hard-coded alignment with macro CRASH_ALIGN
   x86: kdump: make the lower bound of crash kernel reservation
     consistent
   x86: kdump: use macro CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX in functions
     reserve_crashkernel()
   x86: kdump: move xen_pv_domain() check and insert_resource() to
     setup_arch()
   x86: kdump: move reserve_crashkernel[_low]() into crash_core.c
   arm64: kdump: introduce some macros for crash kernel reservation
   arm64: kdump: reimplement crashkernel=X
   x86, arm64: Add ARCH_WANT_RESERVE_CRASH_KERNEL config
   of: fdt: Add memory for devices by DT property
     "linux,usable-memory-range"
   kdump: update Documentation about crashkernel

Zhen Lei (1):
   of: fdt: Aggregate the processing of "linux,usable-memory-range"

Apart from a minor comment I made on patch 8 and some comments from Rob
that need addressing, the rest looks fine to me.

Ingo stated in the past that he's happy to ack the x86 changes as long
as there's no functional change (and that's the case AFAICT). Ingo, does
your conditional ack still stand?

In terms of merging, I'm happy to take it all through the arm64 tree
with acks from the x86 maintainers. Alternatively, with the change I
mentioned for patch 8, the first 5 patches could be queued via the tip
tree on a stable branch and I can base the rest of the arm64 on top.

Thomas, Ingo, Peter, any preference?

Thanks.

Hi,

If you notice the trend over the past year , some of additional review 
requests are because the submitter had to rebase to the next version.

Can we get this acked and placed in a build so others can test and start 
using it ?

Thank you,
JD