On 2022/3/15 20:21, Baoquan He wrote:
> On 03/15/22 at 07:57pm, Baoquan He wrote:
>> On 02/27/22 at 11:07am, Zhen Lei wrote:
>>> The crashkernel=Y,low is an optional command-line option. When it doesn't
>>> exist, kernel will try to allocate minimum required memory below 4G
>>> automatically. Give it a unique error code to distinguish it from other
>>> error scenarios.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> kernel/crash_core.c | 3 +--
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/kernel/crash_core.c b/kernel/crash_core.c
>>> index 256cf6db573cd09..4d57c03714f4e13 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/crash_core.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/crash_core.c
>>> @@ -243,9 +243,8 @@ static int __init __parse_crashkernel(char *cmdline,
>>> *crash_base = 0;
>>>
>>> ck_cmdline = get_last_crashkernel(cmdline, name, suffix);
>>> -
>>> if (!ck_cmdline)
>>> - return -EINVAL;
>>> + return -ENOENT;
>>
>> Firstly, I am not sure if '-ENOENT' is a right value to return. From the
>> code comment of ENOENT, it's used for file or dir?
>> #define ENOENT 2 /* No such file or directory */
This error code does not return to user mode, so there is no problem.
There are a lot of places in the kernel that are used this way. For example:
int stop_one_cpu(unsigned int cpu, cpu_stop_fn_t fn, void *arg)
{
if (!cpu_stop_queue_work(cpu, &work))
return -ENOENT;
>>
>> Secondly, we ever discussed the case including
>> - no crashkernel=,low is provided;
>> - messy code is provied, e.g crashkernel=aaaaaabbbb,low
>
> Checking the 3rd pach, this is handled. Take back my below words,
> continue reviewing.
Yes.
>
>>
>> The 2nd one is not handled in this patchset. How about taking the
>> handling into another round of patches. This patchset just adds
>> crashkernel=,high purely.
>>
>>>
>>> ck_cmdline += strlen(name);
>>>
>>> --
>>> 2.25.1
>>>
>>
>
> .
>
--
Regards,
Zhen Lei
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
