From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2021 19:24:14 +0000 From: Catalin Marinas Subject: Re: [PATCH v17 02/10] x86: kdump: make the lower bound of crash kernel reservation consistent Message-ID: References: <20211210065533.2023-1-thunder.leizhen@huawei.com> <20211210065533.2023-3-thunder.leizhen@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "kexec" Errors-To: kexec-bounces+dwmw2=infradead.org@lists.infradead.org To: Borislav Petkov Cc: Zhen Lei , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , x86@kernel.org, "H . Peter Anvin" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Dave Young , Baoquan He , Vivek Goyal , Eric Biederman , kexec@lists.infradead.org, Will Deacon , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Rob Herring , Frank Rowand , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Randy Dunlap , Feng Zhou , Kefeng Wang , Chen Zhou On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 08:07:58PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 02:55:25PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote: > > From: Chen Zhou > > > > The lower bounds of crash kernel reservation and crash kernel low > > reservation are different, use the consistent value CRASH_ALIGN. > > A big WHY is missing here to explain why the lower bound of the > allocation range needs to be 16M and why was 0 wrong? I asked the same here: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210224143547.GB28965@arm.com IIRC Baoquan said that there is a 1MB reserved for x86 anyway in the lower part, so that's equivalent in practice to starting from CRASH_ALIGN. Anyway, I agree the commit log should describe this. -- Catalin _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec