* 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
