On 05/27/23 at 08:34pm, Zhen Lei wrote: > If the resource of crashk_res has been released, it is better to clear > crashk_res.start and crashk_res.end. Because 'end = start - 1' is not > reasonable, and in some places the test is based on crashk_res.end, not > resource_size(&crashk_res).
This looks reasonable, at least I haven't think of any risk it could bring. Thanks. Acked-by: Baoquan He <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <[email protected]> > --- > kernel/kexec_core.c | 11 +++++++---- > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/kexec_core.c b/kernel/kexec_core.c > index d1ab139dd49035e..bcc86a250ab3bf9 100644 > --- a/kernel/kexec_core.c > +++ b/kernel/kexec_core.c > @@ -1137,15 +1137,18 @@ int crash_shrink_memory(unsigned long new_size) > end = start + new_size; > crash_free_reserved_phys_range(end, crashk_res.end); > > - if (start == end) > - release_resource(&crashk_res); > - > ram_res->start = end; > ram_res->end = crashk_res.end; > ram_res->flags = IORESOURCE_BUSY | IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM; > ram_res->name = "System RAM"; > > - crashk_res.end = end - 1; > + if (start == end) { > + release_resource(&crashk_res); > + crashk_res.start = 0; > + crashk_res.end = 0; > + } else { > + crashk_res.end = end - 1; > + } > > insert_resource(&iomem_resource, ram_res); > > -- > 2.25.1 > _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list [email protected] http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
