On 2020/10/6 1:16, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 09:47:42PM +0800, Chen Zhou wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
>> index 53acbeca4f57..1b24072f2bae 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
>> @@ -238,7 +238,18 @@ static void __init request_standard_resources(void)
>> kernel_data.end <= res->end)
>> request_resource(res, &kernel_data);
>> #ifdef CONFIG_KEXEC_CORE
>> - /* Userspace will find "Crash kernel" region in /proc/iomem. */
>> + /*
>> + * Userspace will find "Crash kernel" or "Crash kernel (low)"
>> + * region in /proc/iomem.
>> + * In order to distinct from the high region and make no effect
>> + * to the use of existing kexec-tools, rename the low region as
>> + * "Crash kernel (low)".
>> + */
>> + if (crashk_low_res.end && crashk_low_res.start >= res->start &&
>> + crashk_low_res.end <= res->end) {
>> + crashk_low_res.name = "Crash kernel (low)";
>> + request_resource(res, &crashk_low_res);
>> + }
> With the changes in this series (including the above), how do the
> current kexec-tools behave? Do they pick just the high region and the
> loaded kernel will subsequently fail to boot?
Yes，just pick the high region and will boot fail if low memory is needed.
Thanks,
Chen Zhou
>
