From: Amerigo Wang <amwang@redhat.com>
To: Bernhard Walle <bernhard.walle@gmx.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tony.luck@intel.com,
linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, Neil Horman <nhorman@redhat.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Anton Vorontsov <avorontsov@ru.mvista.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch 0/8] V3 Implement crashkernel=auto
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 08:19:54 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4A83CCAA.1030302@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090813053952.GA9037@mail1.bwalle.de>
Bernhard Walle wrote:
> Hi,
>
> * Amerigo Wang <amwang@redhat.com> [2009-08-13 04:49]:
>
>> Bernhard Walle wrote:
>>
>>> Honestly I don't see why everything is guarded by
>>> CONFIG_KEXEC_AUTO_RESERVE. We do we need that new configuration
>>> option? I mean, if I don't specify 'crashkernel=auto', then the patch
>>> does nothing, right? Then the option CONFIG_KEXEC_AUTO_RESERVE would
>>> only be needed so save some bytes of code. Is that really worth it?
>>>
>> Hi, CONFIG_KEXEC_AUTO_RESERVE is not for saving bytes, it just
>> provides a choice for the user to decide to enable it or not.
>>
>
> Still, I don't understand it. When I don't say "crashkernel=auto" on
> command line, then nothing is done, right? So the choice for the user
> is the "crashkernel=auto". Why do we need CONFIG_KEXEC_AUTO_RESERVE
> then? Maybe I just missed something in my logic ...
>
Sure.
But if we disable CONFIG_KEXEC_AUTO_RESERVE, that means crashkernel=auto
will be invalid, this is the same as it is now.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Amerigo Wang <amwang@redhat.com>
To: Bernhard Walle <bernhard.walle@gmx.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tony.luck@intel.com,
linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, Neil Horman <nhorman@redhat.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Anton Vorontsov <avorontsov@ru.mvista.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch 0/8] V3 Implement crashkernel=auto
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 16:19:54 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4A83CCAA.1030302@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090813053952.GA9037@mail1.bwalle.de>
Bernhard Walle wrote:
> Hi,
>
> * Amerigo Wang <amwang@redhat.com> [2009-08-13 04:49]:
>
>> Bernhard Walle wrote:
>>
>>> Honestly I don't see why everything is guarded by
>>> CONFIG_KEXEC_AUTO_RESERVE. We do we need that new configuration
>>> option? I mean, if I don't specify 'crashkernel=auto', then the patch
>>> does nothing, right? Then the option CONFIG_KEXEC_AUTO_RESERVE would
>>> only be needed so save some bytes of code. Is that really worth it?
>>>
>> Hi, CONFIG_KEXEC_AUTO_RESERVE is not for saving bytes, it just
>> provides a choice for the user to decide to enable it or not.
>>
>
> Still, I don't understand it. When I don't say "crashkernel=auto" on
> command line, then nothing is done, right? So the choice for the user
> is the "crashkernel=auto". Why do we need CONFIG_KEXEC_AUTO_RESERVE
> then? Maybe I just missed something in my logic ...
>
Sure.
But if we disable CONFIG_KEXEC_AUTO_RESERVE, that means crashkernel=auto
will be invalid, this is the same as it is now.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-08-13 8:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 91+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-08-12 8:15 [Patch 0/8] V3 Implement crashkernel=auto Amerigo Wang
2009-08-12 8:15 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-12 8:15 ` [Patch 1/8] x86: add CONFIG_KEXEC_AUTO_RESERVE Amerigo Wang
2009-08-12 8:15 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-12 8:15 ` [Patch 2/8] x86: implement crashkernel=auto Amerigo Wang
2009-08-12 8:15 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-12 8:15 ` [Patch 3/8] ia64: add CONFIG_KEXEC_AUTO_RESERVE Amerigo Wang
2009-08-12 8:15 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-12 8:15 ` [Patch 4/8] ia64: implement crashkernel=auto Amerigo Wang
2009-08-12 8:15 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-12 8:16 ` [Patch 5/8] powerpc: add CONFIG_KEXEC_AUTO_RESERVE Amerigo Wang
2009-08-12 8:16 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-12 8:16 ` [Patch 6/8] powerpc: implement crashkernel=auto Amerigo Wang
2009-08-12 8:16 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-12 8:16 ` [Patch 7/8] doc: update the kdump document Amerigo Wang
2009-08-12 8:16 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-12 8:16 ` [Patch 8/8] kexec: allow to shrink reserved memory Amerigo Wang
2009-08-12 8:16 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-13 3:11 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-08-13 3:11 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-08-13 3:32 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-13 3:32 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-13 3:32 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-13 6:18 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-08-13 6:18 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-08-13 6:18 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-08-13 8:23 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-13 8:23 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-13 8:23 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-14 22:17 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-08-14 22:17 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-08-14 22:17 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-08-17 9:50 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-17 9:50 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-17 9:50 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-18 0:29 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-08-18 0:29 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-08-18 0:29 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-08-18 6:31 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-18 6:31 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-18 6:31 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-18 8:25 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-08-18 8:25 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-08-18 8:25 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-08-18 8:51 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-18 8:51 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-18 8:51 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-18 10:35 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-18 10:35 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-18 10:35 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-18 23:57 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-08-18 23:57 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-08-18 23:57 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-08-19 2:41 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-19 2:41 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-19 2:41 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-19 8:13 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-08-19 8:13 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-08-19 8:13 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-08-19 10:47 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-19 10:47 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-19 10:47 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-20 9:15 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-20 9:15 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-20 9:15 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-21 0:34 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-08-21 0:34 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-08-21 0:34 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-08-21 1:59 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-21 1:59 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-21 1:59 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-21 2:03 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-08-21 2:03 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-08-21 2:03 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-08-21 2:47 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-21 2:47 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-21 2:47 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-12 12:46 ` [Patch 0/8] V3 Implement crashkernel=auto Bernhard Walle
2009-08-12 12:46 ` Bernhard Walle
2009-08-13 2:49 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-13 2:49 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-13 5:39 ` Bernhard Walle
2009-08-13 5:39 ` Bernhard Walle
2009-08-13 8:19 ` Amerigo Wang [this message]
2009-08-13 8:19 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-13 9:03 ` Bernhard Walle
2009-08-13 9:03 ` Bernhard Walle
2009-08-13 10:49 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-08-13 10:49 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-08-14 2:59 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-08-14 2:59 ` Amerigo Wang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4A83CCAA.1030302@redhat.com \
--to=amwang@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=avorontsov@ru.mvista.com \
--cc=bernhard.walle@gmx.de \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=fenghua.yu@intel.com \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=nhorman@redhat.com \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.