On 01/22/14 at 06:52pm, Wang Nan wrote: > Old code assume the zImage compression ration is 4, it is not enough, 5 shall > be > better.
4 works well during my test. Do you have real test case to reproduce this problem? > > Signed-off-by: Wang Nan <[email protected]> > Cc: Simon Horman <[email protected]> > Cc: Dave Young <[email protected]> > Cc: Geng Hui <[email protected]> > --- > kexec/arch/arm/kexec-zImage-arm.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/kexec/arch/arm/kexec-zImage-arm.c > b/kexec/arch/arm/kexec-zImage-arm.c > index 6d6b239..6e5e12b 100644 > --- a/kexec/arch/arm/kexec-zImage-arm.c > +++ b/kexec/arch/arm/kexec-zImage-arm.c > @@ -351,7 +351,7 @@ int zImage_arm_load(int argc, char **argv, const char > *buf, off_t len, > } else { > /* Otherwise, assume the maximum kernel compression ratio > * is 4, and just to be safe, place ramdisk after that */ > - initrd_base = base + _ALIGN(len * 4, 4096); > + initrd_base = base + _ALIGN(len * 5, 4096); > } > > if (use_atags) { > -- > 1.8.4 > > > _______________________________________________ > kexec mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list [email protected] http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
