From: Thomas Renninger <trenn@suse.de>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: yinghai@kernel.org, Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>,
kexec@lists.infradead.org, x86@kernel.org, vgoyal@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Cleanup kdump memmap= passing and e820 usage
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 17:39:51 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201301301739.52358.trenn@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4dc77552-977d-4761-860e-afdec61c4317@email.android.com>
On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 05:16:22 PM H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> I am NAKing 1/3 and think you seriously need to explain your design
> choice for the rest. "Unnecessarily complex" is not an explanation, it
> is a cop-out.
Ok, 1/3 should not go in because it changes boot param processing
which works like that for years. No problem.
For the rest I explain the advantages here:
> >This:
> > - heavily cleans up the unnecesary reserved memory passing via memmap=
> > - still provides a clean way of passing a valid e820 table through
> > boot structures (no Linux kernel made up e820 type passing)
> > - Keeps complexity as low as possible and at one place and does not
> > involve kexec-tools as another error source (passing a badly
> > mangled e820 table or not being able to consider stuff the kernel
> > can when mangeling).
If for some reason the e820 table in kdump case needs to be
touched again, I am pretty sure you do not want to look up
kexec-tools code.
Also you won't be able to fix/workaround things in kexec-tools
the way you can in the kernel.
I also do not think it's a good idea to pass an unspecified,
Linux kernel made up e820 type through the public boot interface.
So looking from the other side, passing a modified e820 table
only has disadvantages. The only advantage I can see that
memmap=..,X@Y,W@Z needs not to be passed. But this is rather
short and static now and not huge depending on the e820 reserved
entries from the BIOS (and still obvious where it comes from and why
it gets passed. Passing things hidden in a modified e820 boot structure
is not a good idea).
Again, please consider to take these (after rebasing without 1/3).
If not I guess you have to explain me the advantages of passing
a mangled e820 table which I do oversee. If they do not convince me
I suggest we still take this or someone else has to touch the
kexec-tools parts.
Thomas
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-01-30 16:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-01-22 15:02 [PATCH 0/3] Make use of new memmap= kernel parameter syntax Thomas Renninger
2013-01-22 15:02 ` [PATCH 1/3] kexec: Split kernel_version() to also be able to pass a release string Thomas Renninger
2013-01-22 15:02 ` [PATCH 2/3] kexec x86: Extract kernel version and convert it to KERNEL_VERSION() style Thomas Renninger
2013-01-22 15:02 ` [PATCH 3/3] kexec x86: Make kexec aware of new memmap= kernel parameter possibilities Thomas Renninger
2013-01-30 4:31 ` [PATCH 0/3] Make use of new memmap= kernel parameter syntax Simon Horman
2013-01-30 5:40 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-01-30 5:52 ` Simon Horman
2013-01-30 16:03 ` Thomas Renninger
2013-01-30 16:06 ` [PATCH 1/3] x86 e820: Check for exactmap appearance when parsing first memmap option Thomas Renninger
2013-01-30 16:09 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-01-30 16:08 ` [PATCH 2/3] x86: Introduce Linux kernel specific E820_RESERVED_KDUMP e820 memory range type Thomas Renninger
2013-01-30 16:10 ` [PATCH 3/3] x86 e820: Introduce memmap=kdump_reserve_usable for kdump usage Thomas Renninger
2013-01-30 16:10 ` [PATCH 0/3] Make use of new memmap= kernel parameter syntax H. Peter Anvin
2013-01-30 16:13 ` [PATCH 0/3] Cleanup kdump memmap= passing and e820 usage Thomas Renninger
2013-01-30 16:16 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-01-30 16:39 ` Thomas Renninger [this message]
2013-01-30 16:52 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-01-30 17:41 ` Yinghai Lu
2013-01-30 18:52 ` Eric W. Biederman
2013-01-30 21:38 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-01-30 21:57 ` Eric W. Biederman
2013-01-30 22:10 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-01-30 22:29 ` Eric W. Biederman
2013-01-30 22:41 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-01-30 22:49 ` Yinghai Lu
2013-01-31 0:15 ` Thomas Renninger
2013-01-31 0:18 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-01-31 9:11 ` Thomas Renninger
2013-02-06 15:23 ` Thomas Renninger
2013-02-06 23:04 ` Eric W. Biederman
2013-02-06 23:11 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-02-06 23:39 ` Eric W. Biederman
2013-02-08 20:08 ` Thomas Renninger
2013-02-08 20:25 ` Eric W. Biederman
2013-02-08 20:56 ` Thomas Renninger
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=201301301739.52358.trenn@suse.de \
--to=trenn@suse.de \
--cc=horms@verge.net.au \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=yinghai@kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox