* Vivek Goyal <vgoyal at in.ibm.com> [2007-09-12 13:23]:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 12:01:10PM +0200, Bernhard Walle wrote:
> > * Vivek Goyal <vgoyal at 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
