On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 12:15:25PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote: > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 7:02 AM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal at redhat.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:11:51PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote: > > > > Hence both crashkernel=xM and crashkernel=XM,high have their own usage. > > We have been using crashkernel=xM and we know it works. So extending it > > to be able to allocate memory from higher regions, if sufficient memory > > is not available in lower regions makes sense. Memory reservation below > > 4G is more efficient due to not requiring swiotlb. And crashkernel=xM > > has been working for us and users are familiar with it. > > > > So I don't see a point that why would you try to block any move to > > extend crashkernel=xM semantics. > > Make the thing simple. > Keep them separately, leave crashkernel=xM to old kexec-tools mostly > and keep crashkernel=xM,high to newer kexec-tools as needed. I am keeping things simple by making sure that both old kexec-tools and new kexec-tools can use crashkernel=xM and one does not have to choose between two based on what kexec-tools version you are using. Also keeping things simple by not trying to *impose* a new crashkernel= syntax on existing crashkernel=xM users. Hence extending the semantics of crashkernel=xM makes sense to me. Thanks Vivek
