On 7/09/23 18:39, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 9/6/23 00:39, Adrian Hunter wrote: >> @@ -559,7 +567,8 @@ static int vmcore_remap_oldmem_pfn(struct vm_area_struct *vma, >> * pages without a reason. >> */ >> idx = srcu_read_lock(&vmcore_cb_srcu); >> - if (!list_empty(&vmcore_cb_list)) >> + if (!list_empty(&vmcore_cb_list) || >> + range_contains_unaccepted_memory(paddr, paddr + size)) >> ret = remap_oldmem_pfn_checked(vma, from, pfn, size, prot); >> else >> ret = remap_oldmem_pfn_range(vma, from, pfn, size, prot); > > The whole callback mechanism which fs/proc/vmcore.c::pfn_is_ram() > implements seems to be in place to ensure that there aren't a billion > different "ram" checks in here. > > Is there a reason you can't register_vmcore_cb() a callback to check for > unaccepted memory? Someone asked for the change to be in arch-independent code... ;-) _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
