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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D076C4708F for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 13:19:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F6C2610C9 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 13:19:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233960AbhFANVL (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Jun 2021 09:21:11 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:1864 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233064AbhFANVJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Jun 2021 09:21:09 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098404.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 151D7E92145199; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 09:18:45 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=date : from : to : cc : subject : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=nujpD2uRJJJK6SGWNkvfjHopcPKh4UOdpV9UeDwm950=; b=lu9zdtiAOggn0BEn0PWSqNkynDl14bx+UcEni8ELAqwUzdVV8LvK96tznyKVGyxUEYFN DV+Wu9jrPl4LeJ9kgdSAql7rCf+g7k2HiwCwoHN3cYpI6swQbEwbon/K3tVtu/5RRzOU LMVfdHSFy66oBmZaktBpyatrVm1X9xeGc1O13brQFmcom5elIMusETlBRTU8AHTZBQik IYexEy3ZPWwGw3zI2pbG6mnmU7D1skagjSG2WYFNB25QXjzNXgKGrLccuGte3r+KrelC 8EZZe5+Aoh354IjNcA/aAc2atFwoF63+oZwQXEfboAjxoOWnTvOAnYrbQ4yxbvTXdRDD KA== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 38wma4jq5t-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 01 Jun 2021 09:18:45 -0400 Received: from m0098404.ppops.net (m0098404.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 151D7UWu146948; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 09:18:45 -0400 Received: from ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com (62.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.98]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 38wma4jq53-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 01 Jun 2021 09:18:44 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 151DEBq2004348; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 13:18:42 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay11.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.196]) by ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 38ud889qy6-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 01 Jun 2021 13:18:42 +0000 Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.59]) by b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 151DIdi518284996 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 1 Jun 2021 13:18:39 GMT Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDD24A4059; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 13:18:38 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3027BA4040; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 13:18:38 +0000 (GMT) Received: from thinkpad (unknown [9.171.61.122]) by d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with SMTP; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 13:18:38 +0000 (GMT) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2021 15:18:36 +0200 From: Gerald Schaefer To: Mike Rapoport Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Catalin Marinas , Christian Borntraeger , David Hildenbrand , Heiko Carstens , Mike Rapoport , Russell King , Thomas Bogendoerfer , Vasily Gorbik , Will Deacon , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT PATCH 1/5] s390: make crashk_res resource a child of "System RAM" Message-ID: <20210601151836.1f3a90e0@thinkpad> In-Reply-To: <20210531122959.23499-2-rppt@kernel.org> References: <20210531122959.23499-1-rppt@kernel.org> <20210531122959.23499-2-rppt@kernel.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.8 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: zfZM6brFCcTyehtRJvYgRd1OdKDzk76Y X-Proofpoint-GUID: 4M8jGD7jEmJYuCMaDnew6ToMDp5DgKp1 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391,18.0.761 definitions=2021-06-01_06:2021-05-31,2021-06-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 impostorscore=0 mlxscore=0 spamscore=0 bulkscore=0 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 adultscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 clxscore=1011 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2104190000 definitions=main-2106010089 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 31 May 2021 15:29:55 +0300 Mike Rapoport wrote: > From: Mike Rapoport > > Commit 4e042af463f8 ("s390/kexec: fix crash on resize of reserved memory") > added a comment that says "crash kernel resource should not be part of the > System RAM resource" but never explained why. As it looks from the code in > the kernel and in kexec there is no actual reason for that. Still testing, but so far everything works fine. > > Keeping crashk_res inline with other resources makes code simpler and > cleaner, and allows future consolidation of the resources setup across > several architectures. > > Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport > --- > arch/s390/kernel/setup.c | 21 +++++---------------- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/s390/kernel/setup.c b/arch/s390/kernel/setup.c > index 5aab59ad5688..30430e7c1b03 100644 > --- a/arch/s390/kernel/setup.c > +++ b/arch/s390/kernel/setup.c > @@ -500,6 +500,9 @@ static struct resource __initdata *standard_resources[] = { > &code_resource, > &data_resource, > &bss_resource, > +#ifdef CONFIG_CRASH_DUMP > + &crashk_res, > +#endif > }; > > static void __init setup_resources(void) > @@ -535,7 +538,7 @@ static void __init setup_resources(void) > > for (j = 0; j < ARRAY_SIZE(standard_resources); j++) { > std_res = standard_resources[j]; > - if (std_res->start < res->start || > + if (!std_res->end || std_res->start < res->start || > std_res->start > res->end) > continue; > if (std_res->end > res->end) { Why is this extra check for !std_res->end added here? I assume it might be needed later, after you moved this to common code, but I cannot see how any of the other patches in this series would require that. > @@ -552,20 +555,6 @@ static void __init setup_resources(void) > } > } > } > -#ifdef CONFIG_CRASH_DUMP > - /* > - * Re-add removed crash kernel memory as reserved memory. This makes > - * sure it will be mapped with the identity mapping and struct pages > - * will be created, so it can be resized later on. > - * However add it later since the crash kernel resource should not be > - * part of the System RAM resource. > - */ > - if (crashk_res.end) { > - memblock_add_node(crashk_res.start, resource_size(&crashk_res), 0); > - memblock_reserve(crashk_res.start, resource_size(&crashk_res)); > - insert_resource(&iomem_resource, &crashk_res); > - } > -#endif > } > > static void __init setup_ident_map_size(void) > @@ -733,7 +722,7 @@ static void __init reserve_crashkernel(void) > diag10_range(PFN_DOWN(crash_base), PFN_DOWN(crash_size)); > crashk_res.start = crash_base; > crashk_res.end = crash_base + crash_size - 1; > - memblock_remove(crash_base, crash_size); > + memblock_reserve(crash_base, crash_size); > pr_info("Reserving %lluMB of memory at %lluMB " > "for crashkernel (System RAM: %luMB)\n", > crash_size >> 20, crash_base >> 20, Other architectures check the return value of memblock_reserve() at this point, and exit crashkernel reservation if it fails. IIUC, the only reason why memblock_reserve() could fail would be the same reason why also memblock_remove() could fail, i.e. that memblock_double_array() would fail. And since we also do not check that at the moment, your patch would probably not (additionally) break anything. Still, this might be something for an add-on patch (for us). Do you happen to know how likely it would be that memblock_remove/reserve() could fail at this point? 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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94F4AC47080 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 13:21:06 +0000 (UTC) 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 mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CB67613B1 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 13:21:06 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 4CB67613B1 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org 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:MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To: 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=XcZ4c/27JUeOYLVhr1eLsZUghD986R1GJ1c0DBB1byo=; b=iLKOhZ20cb+3IM TfM2cDMbjEYTQ85FI6UqZc3+EkncwzNzW48gxN8ts+1tQMxUu4CSf25AutscmUQBMH7MuyvCU7y9/ ktbUxoB8lM7PIrh5qscWusqhPld2bX9nE1fWySWKQPKYyz8JEMNfXu4eJ3qk8HNx482KVYdaSLVWj NkhBO3p5Jf/YJeqorJqRfqlgPwN3kGUkcomRYn8ta4gKcXbRDLiZUAO8WO+vkMQxh3q1k/GmKVZRA StC2+frVfgz6ukEG6k4fkIfk48COF5pTl12Y1lcwYpckU7DvDtbDwoFQ37/evIXMLQMgg/+4EdMvy HuExQMVbRxashDeHOfYA==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1lo4It-00Gki1-2X; Tue, 01 Jun 2021 13:19:31 +0000 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1lo4Ip-00Gkh6-4K for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 01 Jun 2021 13:19:28 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098404.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 151D7E92145199; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 09:18:45 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=date : from : to : cc : subject : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=nujpD2uRJJJK6SGWNkvfjHopcPKh4UOdpV9UeDwm950=; b=lu9zdtiAOggn0BEn0PWSqNkynDl14bx+UcEni8ELAqwUzdVV8LvK96tznyKVGyxUEYFN DV+Wu9jrPl4LeJ9kgdSAql7rCf+g7k2HiwCwoHN3cYpI6swQbEwbon/K3tVtu/5RRzOU LMVfdHSFy66oBmZaktBpyatrVm1X9xeGc1O13brQFmcom5elIMusETlBRTU8AHTZBQik IYexEy3ZPWwGw3zI2pbG6mnmU7D1skagjSG2WYFNB25QXjzNXgKGrLccuGte3r+KrelC 8EZZe5+Aoh354IjNcA/aAc2atFwoF63+oZwQXEfboAjxoOWnTvOAnYrbQ4yxbvTXdRDD KA== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 38wma4jq5t-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 01 Jun 2021 09:18:45 -0400 Received: from m0098404.ppops.net (m0098404.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 151D7UWu146948; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 09:18:45 -0400 Received: from ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com (62.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.98]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 38wma4jq53-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 01 Jun 2021 09:18:44 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 151DEBq2004348; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 13:18:42 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay11.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.196]) by ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 38ud889qy6-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 01 Jun 2021 13:18:42 +0000 Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.59]) by b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 151DIdi518284996 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 1 Jun 2021 13:18:39 GMT Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDD24A4059; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 13:18:38 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3027BA4040; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 13:18:38 +0000 (GMT) Received: from thinkpad (unknown [9.171.61.122]) by d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with SMTP; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 13:18:38 +0000 (GMT) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2021 15:18:36 +0200 From: Gerald Schaefer To: Mike Rapoport Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Catalin Marinas , Christian Borntraeger , David Hildenbrand , Heiko Carstens , Mike Rapoport , Russell King , Thomas Bogendoerfer , Vasily Gorbik , Will Deacon , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT PATCH 1/5] s390: make crashk_res resource a child of "System RAM" Message-ID: <20210601151836.1f3a90e0@thinkpad> In-Reply-To: <20210531122959.23499-2-rppt@kernel.org> References: <20210531122959.23499-1-rppt@kernel.org> <20210531122959.23499-2-rppt@kernel.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.8 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: zfZM6brFCcTyehtRJvYgRd1OdKDzk76Y X-Proofpoint-GUID: 4M8jGD7jEmJYuCMaDnew6ToMDp5DgKp1 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391, 18.0.761 definitions=2021-06-01_06:2021-05-31, 2021-06-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 impostorscore=0 mlxscore=0 spamscore=0 bulkscore=0 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 adultscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 clxscore=1011 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2104190000 definitions=main-2106010089 X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20210601_061927_326072_13A22415 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 36.86 ) 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 Mon, 31 May 2021 15:29:55 +0300 Mike Rapoport wrote: > From: Mike Rapoport > > Commit 4e042af463f8 ("s390/kexec: fix crash on resize of reserved memory") > added a comment that says "crash kernel resource should not be part of the > System RAM resource" but never explained why. As it looks from the code in > the kernel and in kexec there is no actual reason for that. Still testing, but so far everything works fine. > > Keeping crashk_res inline with other resources makes code simpler and > cleaner, and allows future consolidation of the resources setup across > several architectures. > > Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport > --- > arch/s390/kernel/setup.c | 21 +++++---------------- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/s390/kernel/setup.c b/arch/s390/kernel/setup.c > index 5aab59ad5688..30430e7c1b03 100644 > --- a/arch/s390/kernel/setup.c > +++ b/arch/s390/kernel/setup.c > @@ -500,6 +500,9 @@ static struct resource __initdata *standard_resources[] = { > &code_resource, > &data_resource, > &bss_resource, > +#ifdef CONFIG_CRASH_DUMP > + &crashk_res, > +#endif > }; > > static void __init setup_resources(void) > @@ -535,7 +538,7 @@ static void __init setup_resources(void) > > for (j = 0; j < ARRAY_SIZE(standard_resources); j++) { > std_res = standard_resources[j]; > - if (std_res->start < res->start || > + if (!std_res->end || std_res->start < res->start || > std_res->start > res->end) > continue; > if (std_res->end > res->end) { Why is this extra check for !std_res->end added here? I assume it might be needed later, after you moved this to common code, but I cannot see how any of the other patches in this series would require that. > @@ -552,20 +555,6 @@ static void __init setup_resources(void) > } > } > } > -#ifdef CONFIG_CRASH_DUMP > - /* > - * Re-add removed crash kernel memory as reserved memory. This makes > - * sure it will be mapped with the identity mapping and struct pages > - * will be created, so it can be resized later on. > - * However add it later since the crash kernel resource should not be > - * part of the System RAM resource. > - */ > - if (crashk_res.end) { > - memblock_add_node(crashk_res.start, resource_size(&crashk_res), 0); > - memblock_reserve(crashk_res.start, resource_size(&crashk_res)); > - insert_resource(&iomem_resource, &crashk_res); > - } > -#endif > } > > static void __init setup_ident_map_size(void) > @@ -733,7 +722,7 @@ static void __init reserve_crashkernel(void) > diag10_range(PFN_DOWN(crash_base), PFN_DOWN(crash_size)); > crashk_res.start = crash_base; > crashk_res.end = crash_base + crash_size - 1; > - memblock_remove(crash_base, crash_size); > + memblock_reserve(crash_base, crash_size); > pr_info("Reserving %lluMB of memory at %lluMB " > "for crashkernel (System RAM: %luMB)\n", > crash_size >> 20, crash_base >> 20, Other architectures check the return value of memblock_reserve() at this point, and exit crashkernel reservation if it fails. IIUC, the only reason why memblock_reserve() could fail would be the same reason why also memblock_remove() could fail, i.e. that memblock_double_array() would fail. And since we also do not check that at the moment, your patch would probably not (additionally) break anything. Still, this might be something for an add-on patch (for us). Do you happen to know how likely it would be that memblock_remove/reserve() could fail at this point? _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel