From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from e36.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.154]) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.63 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1IVQKZ-0001nH-TI for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:24:33 +0100 Received: from d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.227]) by e36.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l8CBMplF002763 for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2007 07:22:51 -0400 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.5) with ESMTP id l8CBMotY484810 for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2007 05:22:50 -0600 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l8CBMo8h011844 for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2007 05:22:50 -0600 Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:53:08 +0530 From: Vivek Goyal Subject: Re: [patch 1/5] Extended crashkernel command line Message-ID: <20070912112308.GA17436@in.ibm.com> References: <20070909083914.065380136@strauss.suse.de> <20070909083914.488571169@strauss.suse.de> <20070911061522.GD5053@in.ibm.com> <20070911100110.GB31038@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070911100110.GB31038@suse.de> Reply-To: vgoyal@in.ibm.com List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: kexec-bounces@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: kexec-bounces+dwmw2=infradead.org+dwmw2=infradead.org@lists.infradead.org To: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 12:01:10PM +0200, Bernhard Walle wrote: > * Vivek Goyal [2007-09-11 08:15]: > > > > "offset" seems to be optional in the new syntax. What happens if user does > > not specify offset. I think crash_base will be set to zero and system will > > try to reserve x amount of memory start at zero? That would fail? > > That's handled in the architecture specific code -- because it's > different on each architecture and the architecture specific code does > memory reservation. IA64 already can handle this case (on IA64, > specifying 0 is the same than leaving out the base address, and that's > why I wanted to keep that semantics). I think it doesn't also make > sense on i386/x86_64 to choose 0 as real base address, because the > value below 1 MB is special for booting ... > Ok. I see IA64 is handling this case. But in current patchset, i386 and x86_64 will try to reserve memory starting at zero? So we still got to handle this case in i386 and x86_64? Thanks Vivek _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.149]:53239 "EHLO e31.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1764577AbXILLXB (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Sep 2007 07:23:01 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:53:08 +0530 From: Vivek Goyal Subject: Re: [patch 1/5] Extended crashkernel command line Message-ID: <20070912112308.GA17436@in.ibm.com> Reply-To: vgoyal@in.ibm.com References: <20070909083914.065380136@strauss.suse.de> <20070909083914.488571169@strauss.suse.de> <20070911061522.GD5053@in.ibm.com> <20070911100110.GB31038@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070911100110.GB31038@suse.de> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org To: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 12:01:10PM +0200, Bernhard Walle wrote: > * Vivek Goyal [2007-09-11 08:15]: > > > > "offset" seems to be optional in the new syntax. What happens if user does > > not specify offset. I think crash_base will be set to zero and system will > > try to reserve x amount of memory start at zero? That would fail? > > That's handled in the architecture specific code -- because it's > different on each architecture and the architecture specific code does > memory reservation. IA64 already can handle this case (on IA64, > specifying 0 is the same than leaving out the base address, and that's > why I wanted to keep that semantics). I think it doesn't also make > sense on i386/x86_64 to choose 0 as real base address, because the > value below 1 MB is special for booting ... > Ok. I see IA64 is handling this case. But in current patchset, i386 and x86_64 will try to reserve memory starting at zero? So we still got to handle this case in i386 and x86_64? Thanks Vivek