Re: [PATCH 0/3] ARM: Use generic interface to simplify crashkernel reservation

[Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>]

On 07/10/24 at 09:52am, Jinjie Ruan wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2024/7/9 22:06, Baoquan He wrote:
> > On 07/09/24 at 07:06pm, Jinjie Ruan wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2024/7/9 18:39, Baoquan He wrote:
> >>> On 07/09/24 at 05:50pm, Jinjie Ruan wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 2024/7/9 17:29, Baoquan He wrote:
> >>>>> On 07/08/24 at 09:33pm, Jinjie Ruan wrote:
> >>>>>> Currently, x86, arm64, riscv and loongarch has been switched to generic
> >>>>>> crashkernel reservation. Also use generic interface to simplify crashkernel
> >>>>>> reservation for arm32, and fix two bugs by the way.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I am not sure if this is a good idea. I added the generic reservation
> >>>>> itnerfaces for ARCH which support crashkernel=,high|low and normal
> >>>>> crashkernel reservation, with this, the code can be simplified a lot.
> >>>>> However, arm32 doesn't support crashkernel=,high, I am not sure if it's
> >>>>> worth taking the change, most importantly, if it will cause
> >>>>> misunderstanding or misoperation.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, arm32 doesn't support crashkernel=,high.
> >>>>
> >>>> However, a little enhancement to the generic code (please see the first
> >>>> patch), the generic reservation interfaces can also be applicable to
> >>>> architectures that do not support "high" such as arm32, and it can also
> >>>> simplify the code (please see the third patch).
> >>>
> >>> Yeah, I can see the code is simplified. When you specified
> >>> 'crashkernel=xM,high', do you think what should be warn out? Because
> >>> it's an unsupported syntax on arm32, we should do something to print out
> >>> appropriate message.
> >>
> >> Yes, you are right! In this patch it will print "crashkernel high memory
> >> reservation failed." message and out for arm32 if you specify
> > 
> > That message may mislead people to believe crashkernel=,high is
> > supported but reservation is failed, then a bug need be filed for this?
> > We may expect a message telling this syntax is not supported on this
> > ARCH.
> 
> "CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX >= CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX" indicate that the arm32 does
> not support "crashkernel=,high", I wonder if this is generic for similar

Imagine you are a testing engineer or a distros user, how do you know
if "CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX >= CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX" when you test
'crashkernel=,high' and see the failure message?

> architecture. If so, the first patch can print such as
> "crashkernel=,high is not supported on this ARCH" message.

Please consider conprehensively if this is doable, you can paste
draft code here to prove it.

> 
> > 
> >> 'crashkernel=xM,high because "CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX" and
> >> "CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX" is identical for arm32. And it should also warn
> >> out for other similar architecture.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> > 
> > 
>