On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 04:42:52PM -0700, Luck, Tony wrote: > Does this make kexec/kdump happier? Bare minimum testing so far > (builds and boots on tiger ... didn't try kexec yet). Hi Tony, your analysis (in your previous email) was more or less the same conclusion that I had come too, though I was puzzling over why you had put the reserved area for cpu0 where you had - I assumed I was misunderstanding things. This patch looks good to me. Jay, With this patch I assume that we still need an order of operations fix for kexec-tools but no section merging changes. Is that correct? -- Simon Horman VA Linux Systems Japan K.K., Sydney, Australia Satellite Office H: www.vergenet.net/~horms/ W: www.valinux.co.jp/en
