From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934742AbcLVDWj (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Dec 2016 22:22:39 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:36430 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752672AbcLVDWi (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Dec 2016 22:22:38 -0500 Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 11:22:34 +0800 From: Baoquan He To: Xunlei Pang Cc: kexec@lists.infradead.org, Robert LeBlanc , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/crash: Update the stale comment in reserve_crashkernel() Message-ID: <20161222032234.GB25035@x1> References: <1481772621-17923-1-git-send-email-xlpang@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1481772621-17923-1-git-send-email-xlpang@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.0 (2016-08-17) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.25]); Thu, 22 Dec 2016 03:22:37 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 12/15/16 at 11:30am, Xunlei Pang wrote: > CRASH_KERNEL_ADDR_MAX was missing for a long time, update it > with more detailed explanation. > > Cc: Robert LeBlanc > Cc: Baoquan He > Signed-off-by: Xunlei Pang > --- > arch/x86/kernel/setup.c | 5 ++++- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c > index 9c337b0..79ee507 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c > @@ -575,7 +575,10 @@ static void __init reserve_crashkernel(void) > /* 0 means: find the address automatically */ > if (crash_base <= 0) { > /* > - * kexec want bzImage is below CRASH_KERNEL_ADDR_MAX > + * Set CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX upper bound for crash range > + * as old kexec-tools loads bzImage below that, unless > + * "size,high" or "size@offset"(nonzero offset, see the > + * else leg below) is specified. Yes, this is a good catch. It might be better to add comment only about this if branch. If you want to say more about the upper bounds, better discuss with Robert LeBlanc to see if it can be detailed in kdump.txt. Also please CC to x86 maintainers, or akpm. They can help merge this. Thanks Baoquan From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.85_2 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1cJty6-0007DD-QO for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 03:22:59 +0000 Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 11:22:34 +0800 From: Baoquan He Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/crash: Update the stale comment in reserve_crashkernel() Message-ID: <20161222032234.GB25035@x1> References: <1481772621-17923-1-git-send-email-xlpang@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1481772621-17923-1-git-send-email-xlpang@redhat.com> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "kexec" Errors-To: kexec-bounces+dwmw2=infradead.org@lists.infradead.org To: Xunlei Pang Cc: Robert LeBlanc , kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 12/15/16 at 11:30am, Xunlei Pang wrote: > CRASH_KERNEL_ADDR_MAX was missing for a long time, update it > with more detailed explanation. > > Cc: Robert LeBlanc > Cc: Baoquan He > Signed-off-by: Xunlei Pang > --- > arch/x86/kernel/setup.c | 5 ++++- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c > index 9c337b0..79ee507 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c > @@ -575,7 +575,10 @@ static void __init reserve_crashkernel(void) > /* 0 means: find the address automatically */ > if (crash_base <= 0) { > /* > - * kexec want bzImage is below CRASH_KERNEL_ADDR_MAX > + * Set CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX upper bound for crash range > + * as old kexec-tools loads bzImage below that, unless > + * "size,high" or "size@offset"(nonzero offset, see the > + * else leg below) is specified. Yes, this is a good catch. It might be better to add comment only about this if branch. If you want to say more about the upper bounds, better discuss with Robert LeBlanc to see if it can be detailed in kdump.txt. Also please CC to x86 maintainers, or akpm. They can help merge this. Thanks Baoquan _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec