Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86/crash: reserve elfcorehdr for CONFIG_NR_CPUS, not CONFIG_NR_CPUS_DEFAULT

"Ionut Nechita (Wind River)" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups org.infradead.lists.kexec,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 10:05:59 +0800, Jinjie Ruan wrote:
> Could we just use num_possible_cpus()?
>
> Either way, I think it's okay.
>
> Reviewed-by: Jinjie Ruan <[email protected]>

Thanks for the review!

We could -- num_possible_cpus() is fixed after boot and bounded by
CONFIG_NR_CPUS, so it would give an exact (and slightly tighter)
reservation, and it matches what crash_prepare_elf64_headers() actually
iterates over (for_each_possible_cpu()).

I kept CONFIG_NR_CPUS on purpose, though:

  - It is the minimal fix for a Fixes:-tagged, stable-bound bug, and it
    just swaps the wrong compile-time constant (CONFIG_NR_CPUS_DEFAULT)
    for the correct compile-time upper bound (CONFIG_NR_CPUS), which
    keeps the change trivial to reason about and to backport.

  - It keeps the reservation expression homogeneous: in both branches
    the terms (2 + CONFIG_NR_CPUS + CONFIG_CRASH_MAX_MEMORY_RANGES) are
    all compile-time constants; mixing in a runtime value would be
    inconsistent with the neighbouring CRASH_MAX_MEMORY_RANGES term,
    which is also a compile-time bound rather than the actual number of
    memory ranges.

If you'd prefer the num_possible_cpus() variant I am happy to respin,
but otherwise I will keep v1 as-is and carry your Reviewed-by.

Thanks,
Ionut
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.