lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Feb]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v20 2/5] arm64: kdump: introduce some macros for crash kernel reservation
From
Date


On 2022/2/21 11:22, Baoquan He wrote:
> On 02/14/22 at 02:22pm, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2022/2/11 18:39, Baoquan He wrote:
>>> On 01/24/22 at 04:47pm, Zhen Lei wrote:
>>>> From: Chen Zhou <chenzhou10@huawei.com>
>>>>
>>>> Introduce macro CRASH_ALIGN for alignment, macro CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX
>>>> for upper bound of low crash memory, macro CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX for
>>>> upper bound of high crash memory, use macros instead.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Chen Zhou <chenzhou10@huawei.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
>>>> Tested-by: John Donnelly <John.p.donnelly@oracle.com>
>>>> Tested-by: Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@oracle.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> arch/arm64/mm/init.c | 11 ++++++++---
>>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
>>>> index 90f276d46b93bc6..6c653a2c7cff052 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
>>>> @@ -65,6 +65,12 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(memstart_addr);
>>>> phys_addr_t arm64_dma_phys_limit __ro_after_init;
>>>>
>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_KEXEC_CORE
>>>> +/* Current arm64 boot protocol requires 2MB alignment */
>>>> +#define CRASH_ALIGN SZ_2M
>>>> +
>>>> +#define CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX arm64_dma_phys_limit
>>>> +#define CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE
>>>
>>> MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE is obvoiously a alloc flag for memblock
>>> allocator, I don't think it's appropriate to make HIGH_MAX get its value.
>>
>> Right, thanks.
>>
>>> You can make it as memblock.current_limit, or do not define it, but using
>>> MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE direclty in memblock_phys_alloc_range() with
>>> a code comment.
>>
>> This patch is not required at present. These macros are added to eliminate
>> differences to share code with x86.
>
> So this patch may not be needed in this series. It can be added in
> another post when you start to do the clean up and code unification
> among ARCHes, with my udnerstanding. At that time you can consider how
> to abstract the common code to handle the difference.

Yes, it should be merged with the v20 3/5.

>
> .
>

--
Regards,
Zhen Lei

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-02-21 08:21    [W:0.077 / U:0.932 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site