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

Baoquan He
2024-07-09T14:07:05Z

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.

> '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.
>
>
> >
> >
>