On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 06:14:59PM +0800, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
>
> Hi, Dave, Baoquan, Borislav:
> What do you think about the introduction of parse_crashkernel_high_low()? If everyone
> doesn't object, I'll bring it to the next version. But I'll make some adjustments to the
> patches, see below. If there's any objection, I still strongly recommend removing the
> parameters "system_ram" and "crash_base" of parse_crashkernel_{high,low}().
>
> How about splitting __parse_crashkernel() into two parts? One for parsing
> "crashkernel=X[@offset]", another one for parsing "crashkernel=X,{high,low}" and other
> suffixes in the future. So the parameter requirements are clear at the lowest level.
First of all, please do not top post!
Now, I already explained to you what I'd like to see:
https://lore.kernel.org/r/Ycs3kpZD/vpoo1AX@xxxxxxx
yet you still don't get it.
So let me make myself clear: in its current form, this is not really an
improvement so for all x86 changes:
NAKed-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxx>
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
