From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: msalter@redhat.com (Mark Salter)
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2015 13:16:52 -0400
Subject: [PATCH V4 2/3] arm64: support initrd outside kernel linear map
In-Reply-To: <20151006171140.GE26433@leverpostej>
References: <1439830867-14935-1-git-send-email-msalter@redhat.com>
 <1439830867-14935-3-git-send-email-msalter@redhat.com>
 <20150908113113.GA20562@leverpostej> <20151006171140.GE26433@leverpostej>
Message-ID: <1444151812.10788.14.camel@redhat.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Tue, 2015-10-06 at 18:11 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 12:31:13PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > Hi Mark,
> > 
> > On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 06:01:06PM +0100, Mark Salter wrote:
> > > The use of mem= could leave part or all of the initrd outside of
> > > the kernel linear map. This will lead to an error when unpacking
> > > the initrd and a probable failure to boot. This patch catches that
> > > situation and relocates the initrd to be fully within the linear
> > > map.
> > 
> > With next-20150908, this patch results in a confusing message at boot when not
> > using an initrd:
> > 
> > Moving initrd from [4080000000-407fffffff] to [9fff49000-9fff48fff]
> > 
> > I think that can be solved by folding in the diff below.
> 
> Mark, it looks like this fell by the wayside.
> 
> Do you have any objection to this? I'll promote this to it's own patch
> if not.
> 
> Mark.
> 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Mark.
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
> > index 6bab21f..2322479 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
> > @@ -364,6 +364,8 @@ static void __init relocate_initrd(void)
> >                 to_free = ram_end - orig_start;
> >  
> >         size = orig_end - orig_start;
> > +       if (!size)
> > +               return;
> >  
> >         /* initrd needs to be relocated completely inside linear mapping */
> >         new_start = memblock_find_in_range(0, PFN_PHYS(max_pfn),

Sorry, no. That looks perfectly good to me.