From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.231]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1PXnQU-0001jn-CS for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 29 Dec 2010 04:14:15 +0000 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) References: <4D18F798.4010708@zytor.com> <20101228000651.GB4142@redhat.com> <4D192BC3.8040802@zytor.com> <4D1A4469.2060000@zytor.com> Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 20:13:50 -0800 In-Reply-To: <4D1A4469.2060000@zytor.com> (H. Peter Anvin's message of "Tue, 28 Dec 2010 12:11:21 -0800") Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: How does kdump deal with trampoline allocation? 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@lists.infradead.org To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Yinghai Lu , "kexec@lists.infradead.org" , Vivek Goyal "H. Peter Anvin" writes: > On 12/27/2010 11:40 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >>> >>> OK, that's straightforward. That presumably means that the low 640K is >>> marked unused in the memory map that memblock sees during early startup. >>> That fits very cleanly with the patches I'm doing. >> >> Additionally we typically start with maxcpus=1 so we don't strictly >> need the trampoline to start other cpus. >> > > Well, the trampoline is optional only on 32 bits, and with my changes, > it would be unconditional. What motivates your trampoline rewrite? Eric _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec