Date:   Thu, 16 Dec 2021 09:10:40 +0800
From:   Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc:     Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>,
        Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>,
        Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        kexec@lists.infradead.org,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
        Feng Zhou <zhoufeng.zf@bytedance.com>,
        Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>,
        Chen Zhou <dingguo.cz@antgroup.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v17 03/10] x86: kdump: use macro CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX in
 functions reserve_crashkernel()
Message-ID: <20211216011040.GG3023@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
References: <20211210065533.2023-1-thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
 <20211210065533.2023-4-thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
 <YbntdtQo2jfbO4cO@zn.tnic>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YbntdtQo2jfbO4cO@zn.tnic>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On 12/15/21 at 02:28pm, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 02:55:26PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote:
> > @@ -518,7 +519,7 @@ static void __init reserve_crashkernel(void)
> >  		}
> >  	}
> >  
> > -	if (crash_base >= (1ULL << 32) && reserve_crashkernel_low()) {
> > +	if (crash_base >= CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX && reserve_crashkernel_low()) {
> >  		memblock_phys_free(crash_base, crash_size);
> >  		return;
> >  	}
> 
> That's not a equivalent transformation on X86_32.

reserve_crashkernel_low() always return 0 on x86_32, so the not equivalent
transformation for x86_32 doesn't matter, I think.