From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C35FC433EF for ; Tue, 14 Dec 2021 19:10:14 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=B6RitVMrY9AAm/bgRASZ1OBv/33nm6OroMg/FxBJW9s=; b=eoqHqs8HoTxcUg nMBLCdkqJCcI8tvDLALNfg+Y43XQAkXi60Txi6mgd5g0KVphMBftONGLPGB5VNaqfhQqp0rtrpgkn NI6QAOXuayuODp0IiaFmLK09g8qR+iWEmmo2PfvbxKlMuSrtHNZq5kkXs/j+pYMh/NKyFKTrgYe49 mG7Vw/LwAECF5MGcu54KPA+aBSGgOH2nkja3Q8hRmQqbJZ8vpBCfdTrUk3OXOviv0hgZhgUZRm0L0 c8G4O5izRV7YulGTN1sOu6f3xsXwFjKXZNOH0PXzJ2pqe/GLtjpBtO8cp0acBSjTDNmY0zplV5sgy VdH9mJBB51sAq5jsLq2g==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1mxD9l-00FVka-1m; Tue, 14 Dec 2021 19:08:09 +0000 Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([5.9.137.197]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1mxD9e-00FVhZ-Go; Tue, 14 Dec 2021 19:08:05 +0000 Received: from zn.tnic (dslb-088-067-202-008.088.067.pools.vodafone-ip.de [88.67.202.8]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.skyhub.de (SuperMail on ZX Spectrum 128k) with ESMTPSA id A9E571EC018B; Tue, 14 Dec 2021 20:07:55 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alien8.de; s=dkim; t=1639508875; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=O5l+/RcN/07Kl4BXvkg+d4wvjSGbu0tu/uIm4ulPS5E=; b=KpyrcqBL1bMsZhEnaOVmzHhHXxk3lxdpD24NsiYNL8esi9Edi85U/xNazpOPFOGs2+t5Ru NraCkvbLY083zCr9qw9AWnvtMtZDRzApPqPUYsdijhbRFepf3NT/DYk9RxMWiYGi+cl8Nj 8QBJn3wrP1yGzHWQ/rc2R5OabrDzbFQ= Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2021 20:07:58 +0100 From: Borislav Petkov To: Zhen Lei Cc: 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, Catalin Marinas , 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 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: <20211210065533.2023-3-thunder.leizhen@huawei.com> X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20211214_110802_725426_21E28B8F X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 15.64 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org 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? > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c > index 5cc60996eac56d6..6424ee4f23da2cf 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c > @@ -441,7 +441,8 @@ static int __init reserve_crashkernel_low(void) > return 0; > } > > - low_base = memblock_phys_alloc_range(low_size, CRASH_ALIGN, 0, CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX); > + low_base = memblock_phys_alloc_range(low_size, CRASH_ALIGN, CRASH_ALIGN, > + CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX); You don't have to break this line. Thx. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel