From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@in.ibm.com>
To: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xensource.com>
Cc: Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com>, Horms <horms@verge.net.au>,
fastboot@lists.osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Fastboot] [PATCH 1/1] Allow i386 crash kernels to handle x86_64 dumps
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 14:56:36 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070316092636.GA5642@in.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1174035001.28658.61.camel@localhost.localdomain>
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 08:50:01AM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 16:59 +0900, Magnus Damm wrote:
> > On 3/16/07, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xensource.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 11:40 +0900, Magnus Damm wrote:
> > > > Right. And maybe it's a good idea to make sure that this feature is
> > > > actually supported by kexec-tools before adding code to the kernel?
> > >
> > > I sent patches to the fastboot list at the same time I sent these ones
> > > to support differences in the underlying hypervisor architecture in the
> > > tools.
> >
> > Oh, that's good news. I have not seen them yet...
> >
> > > They haven't appeared in the archives yet so I fear they have gone
> > > astray. I'll resend when I get to the office in a bit.
> >
> > ... so please resend.
> >
> > We've just frozen the kexec-tools-testing tree for an upcoming
> > release, but if you resend soon and your patches are trivial you may
> > be able to talk us into merging your changes before the release..
>
> Will resend in about an hour.
>
> > > > My gut feeling about this is that you are begging for trouble. The
> > > > kexec/kdump solution is fragile just by itself, and trying to go
> > > > between architectures is just going to be painful.
> > >
> > > It works fine under Xen and I think going from 64Xen+32Kernel->32Kernel
> > > makes more sense than going from 64Xen+32Kernel->64Kernel. As I said
> > > originally I'm not so convinced it makes sense in the native case but I
> > > see no reason to outlaw it (people get to keep both pieces etc...)
> >
> > For kexec I think it is just fine. But for kdump, are you sure things
> > will work out ok? There are some differences between the i386 and
> > x86_64 kexec-tools code and I wonder if feeding i386 info into an
> > x86_64 kernel will work properly.
>
> It seems to work fine with Xen. A 32 bit kernel handles the 64 bit dump
> just fine, my pre-kdump kernel is 32 bit but it doesn't have much to do
> in this case I think.
>
> I don't know about native. My gut feeling is that if the mechanism of
> actually kexecing between 64 and 32 bit works then there is no problem
> with the crash dump part of the equation.
>
I also think so. If kexec works then kdump should work too. There might
be small issues here and there but can't think of any major one.
Thanks
Vivek
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-03-16 9:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-03-14 17:00 [PATCH 1/1] Allow i386 crash kernels to handle x86_64 dumps Ian Campbell
2007-03-15 1:46 ` Horms
2007-03-15 4:55 ` Vivek Goyal
2007-03-15 5:07 ` Horms
2007-03-15 5:47 ` Vivek Goyal
2007-03-15 8:00 ` Horms
2007-03-15 12:22 ` Ian Campbell
2007-03-15 13:26 ` Vivek Goyal
2007-03-15 13:42 ` Ian Campbell
2007-03-15 23:46 ` Horms
2007-03-16 2:27 ` Vivek Goyal
2007-03-15 23:48 ` Horms
2007-03-16 2:40 ` [Fastboot] " Magnus Damm
2007-03-16 3:22 ` Vivek Goyal
2007-03-16 7:10 ` Horms
2007-03-16 7:50 ` Magnus Damm
2007-03-16 7:28 ` Ian Campbell
2007-03-16 7:59 ` Magnus Damm
2007-03-16 8:50 ` Ian Campbell
2007-03-16 9:20 ` Magnus Damm
2007-03-16 9:35 ` Vivek Goyal
2007-03-16 10:05 ` Magnus Damm
2007-03-16 11:38 ` Vivek Goyal
2007-03-16 11:40 ` Ian Campbell
2007-03-16 12:25 ` Vivek Goyal
2007-03-16 12:31 ` Vivek Goyal
2007-03-16 9:26 ` Vivek Goyal [this message]
2007-03-16 2:42 ` Vivek Goyal
2007-03-16 7:31 ` Ian Campbell
2007-03-16 7:17 ` Ian Campbell
2007-03-16 7:30 ` Horms
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=20070316092636.GA5642@in.ibm.com \
--to=vgoyal@in.ibm.com \
--cc=Ian.Campbell@xensource.com \
--cc=fastboot@lists.osdl.org \
--cc=horms@verge.net.au \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=magnus.damm@gmail.com \
/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