Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758885AbYF0OVx (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jun 2008 10:21:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755362AbYF0OVq (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jun 2008 10:21:46 -0400 Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:58687 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753594AbYF0OVp (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jun 2008 10:21:45 -0400 Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:22:23 +0200 From: Bernhard Walle To: Vivek Goyal Cc: x86@kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Eric W. Biederman" Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Find offset for crashkernel reservation automatically Message-ID: <20080627162223.2df5a8b9@halley.suse.de> In-Reply-To: <20080627141910.GD5801@redhat.com> References: <1214510048-21215-1-git-send-email-bwalle@suse.de> <20080627133256.GB5801@redhat.com> <20080627134212.GC5801@redhat.com> <20080627160656.06f71661@halley.suse.de> <20080627141910.GD5801@redhat.com> Organization: SUSE Linux Products GmbH X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.4.0 (GTK+ 2.12.9; x86_64-suse-linux-gnu) X-Face: ,G!z)dEOMkc[Cu+sF64,T9^5r3b>/}#HBRL%D^j@\SZbr'Itl7q@1<*dgB?A7(_leO1Tc4^ D*WfvfwKcz;,@E^y+pNP%86n8o<&g-vToCXW:r>Y$jxY,`KT?{H!07=2|Jdt?0ba^C-Tnx50vIV8It vi&Sicl:sj`k2`y)E;ECFi;i7W-?t3%\kD*));q)+%-pQd^.r'W}oBBx=+.~Gu}&F;lS7.a-m>Rv"w pe`D'OV^?HJd$-)7<2T[naDPl6+bAj'+UYd]u]B^'.LYK$2jS Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1479 Lines: 36 * Vivek Goyal [2008-06-27 10:19]: > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 04:06:56PM +0200, Bernhard Walle wrote: > > * Vivek Goyal [2008-06-27 09:42]: > > > > > > Thinking more about. Let me step back. I think it is not good idea to > > > take this kernel take decision about the capability of kernel being > > > loaded. There is no way we can find out now that if a kernel is capable > > > of running from this memory location or not. This is highly variable. So, > > > please ignore above comment. > > > > Maybe below 4G makes sense. Because you need some 32 bit memory for DMA. > > That's mostly an architecture limitation, so that could make sense to > > check here. > > Even if you need some 32bit memory in the lower regions, kexec can handle > it with backup segment mechanism (currently 640K). We can always increse > the backup region size. > > So I would think that it is best to leave it without any checking and > then let kexec-tools handle it. Ah, that's true. Only on x86, right? (That would be an alternative for ia64, too ...) But in general policy should go in userspace (if possible), so I agree with you that kexec-tools can handle that. Bernhard -- Bernhard Walle, SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Architecture Development -- 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/