Re: [PATCH v2] x86/crash: Update the stale comment in reserve_crashkernel()

[Dave Young]

Hi, Xunlei

On 01/23/17 at 02:48pm, Xunlei Pang wrote:
> CRASH_KERNEL_ADDR_MAX has been missing for a long time,
> update it with more detailed explanation.
> 
> Cc: Robert LeBlanc <robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Baoquan He <bhe@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Xunlei Pang <xlpang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/setup.c | 4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> index 4cfba94..c32a167 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> @@ -575,7 +575,9 @@ static void __init reserve_crashkernel(void)
>  	/* 0 means: find the address automatically */
>  	if (crash_base <= 0) {
>  		/*
> -		 *  kexec want bzImage is below CRASH_KERNEL_ADDR_MAX
> +		 * Set CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX upper bound for crash memory
> +		 * as old kexec-tools loads bzImage below that, unless
> +		 * "crashkernel=size[KMG],high" is specified.

There is already comment before the define of those macros, also
there are 32bit case which has a different reason about 512M there as
well.

So it looks better to just drop the one line comment without adding
further comments here.
>  		 */
>  		crash_base = memblock_find_in_range(CRASH_ALIGN,
>  						    high ? CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX
> -- 
> 1.8.3.1
> 

Thanks
Dave