From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.87 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1cVead-0003Lt-JX for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 13:23:20 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/crash: Update the stale comment in reserve_crashkernel() References: <1485154103-18426-1-git-send-email-xlpang@redhat.com> <20170123084850.GA15988@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com> From: Xunlei Pang Message-ID: <58860406.1030604@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 21:24:22 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170123084850.GA15988@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: xlpang@redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "kexec" Errors-To: kexec-bounces+dwmw2=infradead.org@lists.infradead.org To: Dave Young , Xunlei Pang Cc: Baoquan He , x86@kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , "H. Peter Anvin" , Robert LeBlanc , Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Morton On 01/23/2017 at 04:48 PM, Dave Young wrote: > Hi, Xunlei > > On 01/23/17 at 02:48pm, Xunlei Pang wrote: >> CRASH_KERNEL_ADDR_MAX has been missing for a long time, >> update it with more detailed explanation. >> >> Cc: Robert LeBlanc >> Cc: Baoquan He >> Signed-off-by: Xunlei Pang >> --- >> arch/x86/kernel/setup.c | 4 +++- >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c >> index 4cfba94..c32a167 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c >> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c >> @@ -575,7 +575,9 @@ static void __init reserve_crashkernel(void) >> /* 0 means: find the address automatically */ >> if (crash_base <= 0) { >> /* >> - * kexec want bzImage is below CRASH_KERNEL_ADDR_MAX >> + * Set CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX upper bound for crash memory >> + * as old kexec-tools loads bzImage below that, unless >> + * "crashkernel=size[KMG],high" is specified. > There is already comment before the define of those macros, also > there are 32bit case which has a different reason about 512M there as > well. If we see from the kexec's perspective, we have a common CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX definition for both x86 32-bit and 64-bit(32-bit x86 has the same value defined for CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX and CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX), so old kexec will load below CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX, so I think the description is fine :-) Regards, Xunlei > > So it looks better to just drop the one line comment without adding > further comments here. >> */ >> crash_base = memblock_find_in_range(CRASH_ALIGN, >> high ? CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX >> -- >> 1.8.3.1 >> > Thanks > Dave > > _______________________________________________ > kexec mailing list > kexec@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec