Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 12 Sep 2007 13:35:21 +0200 | From | Bernhard Walle <> | Subject | Re: [patch 1/5] Extended crashkernel command line |
| |
* Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@in.ibm.com> [2007-09-12 13:23]: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 12:01:10PM +0200, Bernhard Walle wrote: > > * Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@in.ibm.com> [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/
| |