On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 16:55:16 +0800, fuqiang wang <fuqiang.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Thank you very much for your patient comment. This change does indeed improve > readability. But as a combination of these two, how do you feel about moving > crash_setup_memmap_entries() behind vzalloc(). I don't quite understand what you're trying to express. > The image->elf_load_addr is determined by arch_kexec_locate_mem_hole(), this > function can ensure that the value is within the range of [crashk_res.start, > crashk_res.end), but it seems that it cannot guarantee that its value will > always be equal to crashk_res.start. Perhaps I have some omissions, please > point them out. Because elfcorehdr is the first one and only one that allocates memory from the starting address of crashk_res, and the starting address of crashk_res meets the alignment requirement of elfcorehdr. elfcorehdr requires 4k alignment, and the starting address of crashk_res is 16M aligned. Therefore, image->elf_load_addr should be equal to crashk_res.start. _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
