From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.189]) (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 5FF1079CC for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2024 06:30:16 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.189 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1720679420; cv=none; b=GDv+RHSVTyJRcMeHj18O3rNKNRy5FKVAiSh9OXurON/CuY1rNTYo0FO0hjcNleSPDh2QExmPJhcqIi/C3zl4cEZNggDyxnaBMs1G0J2kqdOZ6pTyV9TrBqa2lwXivoUKtom3hST2BCBv2d6rl/orAs9aKtWbC+z2l3kgWtyw/ZE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1720679420; c=relaxed/simple; bh=KAT9RnmPL0U58mleJPhdAUKbDaq4Gt6Eq4Q3xQ2t9KE=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=Cnjc5Q/1YweydEM1FsIixr+J/wE37s8GL4VIVMGVhY2onMbvNcFw/NfLn0OUWO2b84mA2DvB1FEAZNIjXrDEVA+ERqKzoyT2yXPBWDeY+QMGgcgkVBwI8O/jflNvJ+ymdLTu8gpQPcFtb77drzeL/K0U9h9XQ369AI66t20GHB8= 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=45.249.212.189 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 [172.19.88.105]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4WKPr91XfwzQl1c; Thu, 11 Jul 2024 14:26:17 +0800 (CST) Received: from kwepemi100008.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.221.188.57]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3EE8140416; Thu, 11 Jul 2024 14:30:13 +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; Thu, 11 Jul 2024 14:30:12 +0800 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 14:30:11 +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: 8bit X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.178) 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. It seems that x86_32 doesn't support crashkernel=,high and use the generic interface，and also have the first patch bug. I’ll resend the first patch and explain it. > > Thanks > Baoquan > >