Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 17:17:41 +0100
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: arch/arm/kernel/setup.c fails to compile for NOMMU
Message-ID: <20170824161741.GX20805@n2100.armlinux.org.uk>
References: <20170818112402.GB18499@dhcp22.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170818112402.GB18499@dhcp22.suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1525
Lines: 36

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 01:24:02PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> Hi Russel,
> I have a battery of configs for compile testing and for some time I've
> been seeing the following compilation error with nommu config (attached)
> 
> arch/arm/kernel/setup.c: In function 'reserve_crashkernel':
> arch/arm/kernel/setup.c:1005:25: error: 'SECTION_SIZE' undeclared (first
> use in this function)
>              crash_size, SECTION_SIZE);
> 
> I didn't get to look what is going on here, maybe my config is just too
> artificial but the primary reason is that SECTION_SIZE is not defined in
> pgtable-nommu.h. To be honest I am not familiar with nommu very much and
> it smells like the whole reserve_crashkernel doesn't really make any
> sense on those configs. Could you have a look what is the best fix
> please?

Hi,

I suspect that mach-netx has never been tested in nommu configurations
(ditto for many of the older platforms, which pre-date merging nommu
support.)

Maybe the best solution is to make these old platforms depend on MMU.

However, I'm wondering whether kexec makes sense for !MMU - that's
probably something that hasn't been tested and doesn't actually work.
So maybe another approach would be to make kexec depend on MMU for
ARM - but I'm afraid I don't really know.

I only have very limited nommu experience.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 8.8Mbps down 630kbps up
According to speedtest.net: 8.21Mbps down 510kbps up