Amerigo Wang <amwang@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: 2> Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Amerigo Wang <amwang@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> >>>> Nacked-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> We can inspect the image we are going to load to get this information. >>>> In fact /sbin/kexec already inspects the image we are going to load >>>> to get this information. Putting this in the kernel adds kernel >>>> complexity for no gain. >>>> >>> /sbin/kexec is supported to know this, of course. But this is not for >>> /sbin/kexec, this is for user (or other programs) to observe the memory >>> information, so that he can know the memory he reserved is too much or not. >>> >> >> >>> Without this, it is a little hard to use patch 2/2. >>> >> >> So add on option to /sbin/kexec. >> > > This can be another choice. >> Furthermore none of this does a good job of predicting how much >> memory /sbin/fsck will require to check the filesystem before we >> write a crash dump. >> > > No one actually knows this without testing... But if 128M on x86 is still not > enough, that is probably a bug of fsck, not our fault. x86 covers a very large range of hardware. Some of it nearly as large as the big ia64 machines. So why would ia64 require significantly more memory than x86? Eric -- 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
|