From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Bernhard Walle <bernhard.walle@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 12:46:59 +0000
Subject: Re: [Patch 0/8] V3 Implement crashkernel=auto
Message-Id: <20090812124659.GA4808@mail1.bwalle.de>
List-Id: <linux-ia64.vger.kernel.org>
References: <20090812081731.5757.25254.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <20090812081731.5757.25254.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Amerigo Wang <amwang@redhat.com>
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>

* Amerigo Wang <amwang@redhat.com> [2009-08-12 10:15]:
> 
> This series of patch implements automatically reserved memory for crashkernel,
> by introducing a new boot option "crashkernel=auto". This idea is from Neil.

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?


Regards,
Bernhard