Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 09:34:28 -0400
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
        WANG Chao <chaowang@redhat.com>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kexec: use Crash kernel for Crash kernel low
Message-ID: <20130401133428.GA13499@redhat.com>
References: <20130320163131.GE2273@redhat.com>
 <1363807329-24975-1-git-send-email-yinghai@kernel.org>
 <20130325194245.GA7357@redhat.com>
 <CAE9FiQU6bGSAODX_-Vir6D-LyY-9Sm84rYzq=gNhDZ5whbia_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130326181418.GA6775@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20130326181418.GA6775@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1734
Lines: 42

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 02:14:18PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 02:50:18PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > So it is a forgone conclusion that these new kernel changes to
> > > crashkernel=X in 3.9 are incompatible with older kexec-tools and one
> > > needs to upgrade kexec-tools.
> > 
> > I thought that you and hpa all agreed that user need to update kexec-tools with
> > new kernel v3.9. It that still right?
> 
> I can update kexec-tools and I don't have problems with that. I am only
> concerned about some xyz user complaining that new kernel stopped working
> with old kexec-tools and then possibly face the rant from Linus about
> breaking user space. :-)
> 
> To me we could maintain backward compatibility by retaining the existing
> behavior of crashkernle=X. That is  look for specificied memory below
> 896M first and then go higher.
> 
> And hide new semantics behind new kernel parameters or by extending
> existing parameter (say crashkernel=X:search_high_first) to specify how
> to search for reserved memory.
> 
> In both the cases we should probably retain the logic of auto reserving
> low memory for software iotlb and let user opt out if there is no need.
> 
> So we don't have a strong reason that why we should break existing
> kexec-tools. So I would prefer not to break it.
> 
> But I think this is hpa's decision.

hpa,

ping. Any thoughts on this?

Thanks
Vivek
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/