From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751789Ab3KRPmk (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Nov 2013 10:42:40 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:47309 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751512Ab3KRPmb (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Nov 2013 10:42:31 -0500 Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 10:42:09 -0500 From: Vivek Goyal To: jerry.hoemann@hp.com Cc: Ingo Molnar , Pekka Enberg , "H. Peter Anvin" , Rob Landley , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , x86 maintainers , Matt Fleming , Yinghai Lu , Andrew Morton , "list@ebiederm.org:DOCUMENTATION , list@ebiederm.org:MEMORY MANAGEMENT ," , linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Early use of boot service memory Message-ID: <20131118154209.GC32168@redhat.com> References: <20131113224503.GB25344@anatevka.fc.hp.com> <52840206.5020006@zytor.com> <20131113235708.GC25344@anatevka.fc.hp.com> <20131114180455.GA32212@anatevka.fc.hp.com> <20131115005049.GJ5116@anatevka.fc.hp.com> <20131115062417.GB9237@gmail.com> <20131115191308.GB2748@anatevka.fc.hp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131115191308.GB2748@anatevka.fc.hp.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:13:08PM -0700, jerry.hoemann@hp.com wrote: [..] > > Is it possible to fix it the way hpa suggested? > > I think the changes to enable ,high is a step in the > right direction. its an improvement But it is still green. > > We are having lots more problems w/ upstream kdump than we are having > w/ the kdump in distros. > > So, to answer your question with a slight twist: > > Is it possible to back ports lots of green code across multiple > versions and distros and get a bug free user experiences? I guess so. > > is it the right way to go? i personally don't think so. > > but hey, others may have a different view. I agree that backporting a fix/hack to not reserve EFI boot memory on certain platform is much easier as compared to backporting capability to boot from higher memory addresses. I also agree that crashkernel=X,high support is very new and it has yet to go though a wide spread testing to confirm that it works well with wide variety of machines. And this also makes a case to stick to crashkernel=X for older releases and just backport a fix to not reserve EFI boot time memory. Thanks Vivek