Simon Horman wrote: > 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? I think the code should still be simplified. The 'break' of the if-statement has never been executed due to the mistake in operation precedence. Thus, the code have been doing segment merging by calculating p_memsz of each segment without having to deal with 'gap' between PT_LOAD headers. As demonstrated by this incidence, when there is a gap happened, the kernel boot fail. So, if we assume the PT_LOAD headers will be generated correctly, then the segment merging logic should be simplified. It does not make sense to pick up p_memsz of each segment and do all those calculation. It caused confusion. Regards, jay -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|