On Thu, 27 May 2021 at 19:39, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 08:05:27PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > This series is a complete departure from the approach I initially sent > > almost a month ago[1]. Instead of trying to teach EFI, ACPI and other > > subsystem to use memblock, I've decided to stick with the iomem > > resource tree and use that exclusively for arm64. > > > > This means that my current approach is (despite what I initially > > replied to both Dave and Catalin) to provide an arm64-specific > > implementation of arch_kexec_locate_mem_hole() which walks the > > resource tree and excludes ranges of RAM that have been registered for > > any odd purpose. This is exactly what the userspace implementation > > does, and I don't really see a good reason to diverge from it. > > > > Again, this allows my Synquacer board to reliably use kexec_file_load > > with as little as 256M, something that would always fail before as it > > would overwrite most of the reserved tables. > > > > Obviously, this is now at least 5.14 material. Given how broken > > kexec_file_load is for non-crash kernels on arm64 at the moment, > > should we at least disable it in 5.13 and all previous stable kernels? > > I think it makes sense to disable it in the current and earlier kernels. > Ack to that > For this series: > > Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> and likewise for the series Reviewed-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@xxxxxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
