On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 01:40:39PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm/kernel/setup.c
> index f97eb2371672..1f8ef9fd5215 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/setup.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/setup.c
> @@ -1012,31 +1012,25 @@ static void __init reserve_crashkernel(void)
> unsigned long long lowmem_max = __pa(high_memory - 1) + 1;
> if (crash_max > lowmem_max)
> crash_max = lowmem_max;
> - crash_base = memblock_find_in_range(CRASH_ALIGN, crash_max,
> - crash_size, CRASH_ALIGN);
> +
> + crash_base = memblock_phys_alloc_range(crash_size, CRASH_ALIGN,
> + CRASH_ALIGN, crash_max);
> if (!crash_base) {
> pr_err("crashkernel reservation failed - No suitable area found.\n");
> return;
> }
> } else {
> + unsigned long long crash_max = crash_base + crash_size;
> unsigned long long start;
>
> - start = memblock_find_in_range(crash_base,
> - crash_base + crash_size,
> - crash_size, SECTION_SIZE);
> + start = memblock_phys_alloc_range(crash_size, SECTION_SIZE,
> + crash_base, crash_max);
> if (start != crash_base) {
> - pr_err("crashkernel reservation failed - memory is in use.\n");
> + pr_err("crashkernel reservation failed - No suitable area found.\n");
This change to the error message is incorrect. In this code block, we
are trying to get the exact specified memory block - it is not about
there being "no suitable area" - the requested memory block is not
available. So, the original message carries the exact correct meaning.
--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
