On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 11:40 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 07:49:45PM +0530, Pratyush Anand wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Russell King >> <rmk+kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > --- >> > arch/arm/kernel/setup.c | 5 +---- >> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm/kernel/setup.c >> > index 77b54c461c52..d9317eec1eba 100644 >> > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/setup.c >> > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/setup.c >> > @@ -943,7 +943,6 @@ late_initcall(init_machine_late); >> > * zImage relocating below the reserved region. >> > */ >> > #define CRASH_ALIGN (128 << 20) >> > -#define CRASH_ADDR_MAX (PHYS_OFFSET + (512 << 20)) >> > >> > static inline unsigned long long get_total_mem(void) >> > { >> > @@ -973,9 +972,7 @@ static void __init reserve_crashkernel(void) >> > return; >> > >> > if (crash_base <= 0) { >> > - unsigned long long crash_max = CRASH_ADDR_MAX; >> > - if (crash_max > (u32)~0) >> > - crash_max = (u32)~0; >> > + unsigned long long crash_max = idmap_to_phys((u32)~0); >> > crash_base = memblock_find_in_range(CRASH_ALIGN, crash_max, >> > crash_size, CRASH_ALIGN); >> > if (!crash_base) { >> >> Reviewed-by: Pratyush Anand <panand@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Unrelated to these modification: >> In function arch/arm/mm/init.c: arm_memblock_steal() may be following >> would be more appropriate? >> memblock_alloc_base(size, align, idmap_to_phys(MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ANYWHERE)); > > No, arm_memblock_steal() is totally unsuitable. arm_memblock_steal() > *removes* the memory range from memblock, including removing the > mapping of that memory. It will make the memory range inaccessible to > the kernel. > > Since kexec wants to write directly to this memory, using > arm_memblock_steal() will have the cause the kernel to OOPS when > it hits the resulting hole. > Sorry, I was not trying to say that we should use arm_memblock_steal() here. As I said, this comment is totally unrelated to this patch series. In arm_memblock_steal() we pass MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ANYWHERE as max_addr. Probably, it would be good to pass idmap_to_phys(MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ANYWHERE). -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
![]() |