From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from out02.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.232]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.68 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1KIKj4-0002MI-EO for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 09:52:10 +0000 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) References: <1214510048-21215-1-git-send-email-bwalle@suse.de> <20080627133256.GB5801@redhat.com> <86802c440807140011v728cc35fy2540b537ddca9844@mail.gmail.com> <20080714112404.36783df5@halley.suse.de> Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 02:44:37 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20080714112404.36783df5@halley.suse.de> (Bernhard Walle's message of "Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:24:04 +0200") Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Find offset for crashkernel reservation automatically 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: Bernhard Walle Cc: x86@kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org, Yinghai Lu , Vivek Goyal , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Bernhard Walle writes: > * Yinghai Lu [2008-07-14 00:11]: >> >> should use min_t(u64, 1ULL<<32, max_low_pfn< > Shouldn't we use min_t(u64, ULLONG_MAX, max_low_pfn< should we really limit the crashkernel to a 32 bit address on a 64 bit > system? We should use the lowest physical address that meets our size and alignment constraints. However there is no reason to make this be < 4G or even < 1G. The worst case is that we reserve an area the kdump kernel can't run out of. However /sbin/kexec should check for that as the kexec on panic code is not necessarily a linux kernel. Eric _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec