From: Thomas Renninger <trenn@suse.de>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org,
Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
yinghai@kernel.org, vgoyal@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Cleanup kdump memmap= passing and e820 usage
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 10:11:04 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201301311011.04508.trenn@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5109B855.1070600@zytor.com>
On Thursday, January 31, 2013 01:18:29 AM H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 01/30/2013 04:15 PM, Thomas Renninger wrote:
> >
> > I guess both ways are a huge enhancement compared to what we have now.
> > Which approach to finally take should not matter that much, but
> > because of above I still prefer to go this way:
> > - Pass a kernel command line option that just changes the kernels idea
> > of which memory it can touch
> >
>
> The kernel command line is a human-oriented data structure with limited
> size
Size doesn't matter. Before (passing all reserved areas) it surely did.
Now the passed area(s) should be of static size (2 areas) and with
Yinghai's comma seperated memmap= extension needed size is cut even
further.
The commandline size got extended some time ago and as soon as a distro
will hit the limit for whatever reasons, I expect it can get extended
again. But this will certainly not be because of this kdump option.
The resume= param could be cut out by kexec-tools fwiw:
resume=/dev/disk/by-id/ata-Hitachi_HDS721016CLA382_JPAB40HM2KUK6B-part2
> and fairly complex semantics.
This interface works for quite some time and always will.
Above may be valid arguments, but the reasons for passing the kdump
memory area via boot parameter outweight these. The recent
discussion about:
> Just to prevent the possible funnies (including collisions with -errno)
> that might be caused by negative numbers,
underlines this.
To be honest when/why this could happen I do not understand in detail.
But it seems obvious to me that if this self made up e820 type can be
kept kernel internal, it should be done.
So if there isn't another really strong argument against it, I'd
like to resend my work rebased without 1/3.
If the e820 type values should still be modified to whatever value,
this should certainly go in separately with a good changelog
explaining why (which I cannot make up).
Thomas
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-01-31 9:11 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
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 [this message]
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=201301311011.04508.trenn@suse.de \
--to=trenn@suse.de \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--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