Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S967009AbXILLfs (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Sep 2007 07:35:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1764960AbXILLf2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Sep 2007 07:35:28 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:35056 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1766004AbXILLfZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Sep 2007 07:35:25 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 13:35:21 +0200 From: Bernhard Walle To: Vivek Goyal Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch 1/5] Extended crashkernel command line Message-ID: <20070912113521.GE26903@suse.de> Mail-Followup-To: Vivek Goyal , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20070909083914.065380136@strauss.suse.de> <20070909083914.488571169@strauss.suse.de> <20070911061522.GD5053@in.ibm.com> <20070911100110.GB31038@suse.de> <20070912112308.GA17436@in.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070912112308.GA17436@in.ibm.com> Organization: SUSE LINUX Products GmbH User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1648 Lines: 40 * Vivek Goyal [2007-09-12 13:23]: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 12:01:10PM +0200, Bernhard Walle wrote: > > * Vivek Goyal [2007-09-11 08:15]: > > > > > > "offset" seems to be optional in the new syntax. What happens if user does > > > not specify offset. I think crash_base will be set to zero and system will > > > try to reserve x amount of memory start at zero? That would fail? > > > > That's handled in the architecture specific code -- because it's > > different on each architecture and the architecture specific code does > > memory reservation. IA64 already can handle this case (on IA64, > > specifying 0 is the same than leaving out the base address, and that's > > why I wanted to keep that semantics). I think it doesn't also make > > sense on i386/x86_64 to choose 0 as real base address, because the > > value below 1 MB is special for booting ... > > > > Ok. I see IA64 is handling this case. But in current patchset, i386 and > x86_64 will try to reserve memory starting at zero? So we still got > to handle this case in i386 and x86_64? Yes, my fault. I need to replace + if (ret == 0 && crash_size > 0) { with + if (ret == 0 && crash_size > 0 && crash_base > 0) { I'll repost the whole patch with all the corrections when I finished PPC64 and SH. (I'm not in office this week, that's why I'm a bit slow.) Thanks, Bernhard - 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/