From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.187]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43EB0152E03 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:50:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.187 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1720518628; cv=none; b=HPphATqvEreZ03RRrYa6fLKmcZu+xD525slFORyWtEGzCz/mZ0Fs5T8XTNQkkup0OGZBj3HQzMDbzwCL9gBYkWHhcnHek3KaJFbR0Q4B2n6FouGgwU7q2Vi/ksbOj4joqXc2li9U2k0SH3gqAnScvyFbUpcZIFWX8C1zxac+rPY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1720518628; c=relaxed/simple; bh=bQWN4tLvi72L/lJcRZiohCEWS4mEqsepU1WqiTJFNhc=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=WWz4jLRxjY9O9iPH5sL8Y2FMNz/EguNgvpvCqes/e1D96agHdFwbsUsVp9WKRHDEp9i74gmyE2NYKk0pTOSurpIcQUi0WsN2Nlm34y+IBhKlGLiORN4pfZlf/TU66mVo0JLpLI5Zc+xSbYL/IOee35FaySEfASyL1Snwhf6ei8s= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.187 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.163.252]) by szxga01-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4WJGMJ3T7RzxVgV; Tue, 9 Jul 2024 17:45:48 +0800 (CST) Received: from kwepemi100008.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.221.188.57]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8427D18007E; Tue, 9 Jul 2024 17:50:22 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.67.109.254] (10.67.109.254) by kwepemi100008.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.57) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.39; Tue, 9 Jul 2024 17:50:21 +0800 Message-ID: <3157befe-431f-69ac-b9d3-7a8685ba3a4d@huawei.com> Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 17:50:20 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.2.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] ARM: Use generic interface to simplify crashkernel reservation Content-Language: en-US To: Baoquan He CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , References: <20240708133348.3592667-1-ruanjinjie@huawei.com> From: Jinjie Ruan In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.183) To kwepemi100008.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.57) On 2024/7/9 17:29, Baoquan He wrote: > On 07/08/24 at 09:33pm, Jinjie Ruan wrote: >> Currently, x86, arm64, riscv and loongarch has been switched to generic >> crashkernel reservation. Also use generic interface to simplify crashkernel >> reservation for arm32, and fix two bugs by the way. > > I am not sure if this is a good idea. I added the generic reservation > itnerfaces for ARCH which support crashkernel=,high|low and normal > crashkernel reservation, with this, the code can be simplified a lot. > However, arm32 doesn't support crashkernel=,high, I am not sure if it's > worth taking the change, most importantly, if it will cause > misunderstanding or misoperation. Yes, arm32 doesn't support crashkernel=,high. However, a little enhancement to the generic code (please see the first patch), the generic reservation interfaces can also be applicable to architectures that do not support "high" such as arm32, and it can also simplify the code (please see the third patch). > > Thanks > Baoquan > >