Hi Sourabh, could you address this question? It would be good to know before applying this patch. Thanks in advance, Simon On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 03:14:47PM +0800, Coiby Xu wrote: > Hi, > > I'm curious to ask which bug this patch is going to fix. I tested it > yesterday and it doesn't fix > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126409. > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 02:12:40PM +0530, Sourabh Jain wrote: > > Restricting kexec tool to allocate hole for kexec segments below 768MB > > may not be relavent now since first memory block size can be 1024MB and > > more. > > > > Removing rma_top restriction will give more space to find holes for > > kexec segments and existing in-place checks make sure that kexec segment > > allocation doesn't cross the first memory block because every kexec segment > > has to be within first memory block for kdump kernel to boot properly. > > > > Signed-off-by: Sourabh Jain <sourabhjain@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > kexec/arch/ppc64/kexec-ppc64.c | 2 -- > > 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/kexec/arch/ppc64/kexec-ppc64.c b/kexec/arch/ppc64/kexec-ppc64.c > > index 5b17740..611809f 100644 > > --- a/kexec/arch/ppc64/kexec-ppc64.c > > +++ b/kexec/arch/ppc64/kexec-ppc64.c > > @@ -717,8 +717,6 @@ static int get_devtree_details(unsigned long kexec_flags) > > if (base < rma_base) { > > rma_base = base; > > rma_top = base + be64_to_cpu(((uint64_t *)buf)[1]); > > - if (rma_top > 0x30000000UL) > > - rma_top = 0x30000000UL; > > } > > > > fclose(file); > > -- > > 2.37.3 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > kexec mailing list > > kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec > > > > -- > Best regards, > Coiby > > > _______________________________________________ > kexec mailing list > kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec > _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
