Hello, Boris Sorry for the late reply. > On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 09:21:02AM +0000, ???? / KAWAI?HIDEHIRO wrote: > > So, the problem for you is that "noextnmi" option is visible and effective > > in the first kernel, isn't it? > > No, such an option shouldn't exist at all. You should be passing > information *in* *a* *different* *manner* to the kdump kernel - not with > a kernel command line option. Sorry, I couldn't find out the reason why I shouldn't use cmdline option. It doesn't need new user I/F to inform the 1st kernel about masking/unmasking external NMI in the 2nd kernel, doesn't need new data passing infrastructure, and is easy to configure that. Also, "elfcorehdr" and "disable_cpu_apicid" have already been introduced as cmdline options for dump capture kernel. This means the cmdline option approach would be mostly acceptable. > I get the feeling I'm starting to sound like a broken record on this > mail thread... :-( > > One other thing we could probably try to do is use boot_params which > is, IIUC, passed to the second kernel. So we can add another bit to > boot_params.hdr.loadflags or so and use that. Or something similar. I think using boot_params would be worse than ELF header approach. It needs to reserve boot_params bits for all boot loaders. Regards, Hidehiro Kawai Hitachi, Ltd. Research & Development Group
