On 01/22/14 at 06:52pm, Wang Nan wrote:
> Old code assume the zImage compression ration is 4, it is not enough, 5 shall be
> better.
4 works well during my test. Do you have real test case to reproduce this problem?
>
> Signed-off-by: Wang Nan <wangnan0 at huawei.com>
> Cc: Simon Horman <horms at verge.net.au>
> Cc: Dave Young <dyoung at redhat.com>
> Cc: Geng Hui <hui.geng at huawei.com>
> ---
> kexec/arch/arm/kexec-zImage-arm.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kexec/arch/arm/kexec-zImage-arm.c b/kexec/arch/arm/kexec-zImage-arm.c
> index 6d6b239..6e5e12b 100644
> --- a/kexec/arch/arm/kexec-zImage-arm.c
> +++ b/kexec/arch/arm/kexec-zImage-arm.c
> @@ -351,7 +351,7 @@ int zImage_arm_load(int argc, char **argv, const char *buf, off_t len,
> } else {
> /* Otherwise, assume the maximum kernel compression ratio
> * is 4, and just to be safe, place ramdisk after that */
> - initrd_base = base + _ALIGN(len * 4, 4096);
> + initrd_base = base + _ALIGN(len * 5, 4096);
> }
>
> if (use_atags) {
> --
> 1.8.4
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> kexec mailing list
> kexec at lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
