[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210224143547.GB28965@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 14:35:48 +0000
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: Chen Zhou <chenzhou10@...wei.com>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de, rppt@...nel.org,
dyoung@...hat.com, bhe@...hat.com, will@...nel.org,
nsaenzjulienne@...e.de, corbet@....net, John.P.donnelly@...cle.com,
bhsharma@...hat.com, prabhakar.pkin@...il.com, horms@...ge.net.au,
robh+dt@...nel.org, arnd@...db.de, james.morse@....com,
xiexiuqi@...wei.com, guohanjun@...wei.com, huawei.libin@...wei.com,
wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kexec@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 02/11] x86: kdump: make the lower bound of crash
kernel reservation consistent
On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 03:10:16PM +0800, Chen Zhou wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> index da769845597d..27470479e4a3 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> @@ -439,7 +439,8 @@ 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);
> if (!low_base) {
> pr_err("Cannot reserve %ldMB crashkernel low memory, please try smaller size.\n",
> (unsigned long)(low_size >> 20));
Is there any reason why the lower bound can't be 0 in all low cases
here? (Sorry if it's been already discussed, I lost track)
--
Catalin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists