Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757292AbYGNJwT (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Jul 2008 05:52:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756415AbYGNJwL (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Jul 2008 05:52:11 -0400 Received: from out02.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.232]:41576 "EHLO out02.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756330AbYGNJwK (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Jul 2008 05:52:10 -0400 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Bernhard Walle Cc: "Yinghai Lu" , "Vivek Goyal" , kexec@lists.infradead.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1214510048-21215-1-git-send-email-bwalle@suse.de> <20080627133256.GB5801@redhat.com> <86802c440807140011v728cc35fy2540b537ddca9844@mail.gmail.com> <20080714112404.36783df5@halley.suse.de> Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 02:44:37 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20080714112404.36783df5@halley.suse.de> (Bernhard Walle's message of "Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:24:04 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 24.130.11.59 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa01 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: ;Bernhard Walle X-Spam-Relay-Country: X-Spam-Report: * -1.8 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG * 0.0 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60% * [score: 0.4694] * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa01 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] * 0.0 XM_SPF_Neutral SPF-Neutral Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Find offset for crashkernel reservation automatically X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 (built Thu, 03 Mar 2005 10:44:12 +0100) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mgr1.xmission.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 903 Lines: 22 Bernhard Walle writes: > * Yinghai Lu [2008-07-14 00:11]: >> >> should use min_t(u64, 1ULL<<32, max_low_pfn< > Shouldn't we use min_t(u64, ULLONG_MAX, max_low_pfn< should we really limit the crashkernel to a 32 bit address on a 64 bit > system? We should use the lowest physical address that meets our size and alignment constraints. However there is no reason to make this be < 4G or even < 1G. The worst case is that we reserve an area the kdump kernel can't run out of. However /sbin/kexec should check for that as the kexec on panic code is not necessarily a linux kernel. Eric -- 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/