lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Apr]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] kexec: use Crash kernel for Crash kernel low
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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-04-01 16:01    [W:0.101 / U:0.524 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site