From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:16:09 +1100 From: Paul Mackerras To: Mahesh J Salgaonkar Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v6 00/10] fadump: Firmware-assisted dump support for Powerpc. Message-ID: <20120215041608.GA15258@bloggs.ozlabs.ibm.com> References: <20111210064301.10195.3344.stgit@mars.in.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20111210064301.10195.3344.stgit@mars.in.ibm.com> Cc: Amerigo Wang , Kexec-ml , Linux Kernel , Milton Miller , linuxppc-dev , Randy Dunlap , Anton Blanchard , Vivek Goyal , "Eric W. Biederman" List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 12:19:59PM +0530, Mahesh J Salgaonkar wrote: > The most of the code implementation has been adapted from phyp assisted dump > implementation written by Linas Vepstas and Manish Ahuja. When you repost the series, please be explicit about what the relationship between the new fadump facility and the old phyp-dump is, both in the documentation you're adding and in the patch descriptions. I gather that fadump uses the same firmware interfaces as phyp-dump, and can be characterised as a rewrite of phyp-dump. It would be good if you would explicitly mention: - What advantages fadump has over phyp-dump - Whether there are any capabilities that phyp-dump does that fadump doesn't - What is different between fadump and phyp-dump in the interface to usermode code - Any user-visible differences between how fadump operates compared to phyp-dump. For example, will users see a difference in how much memory is available to the kernel? Paul.