Re: [Patch 0/8] V3 Implement crashkernel=auto
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Amerigo Wang <amwang@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [Patch 0/8] V3 Implement crashkernel=auto
- From: Bernhard Walle <bernhard.walle@xxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 14:46:59 +0200
- Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx, linux-ia64@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Neil Horman <nhorman@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@xxxxxxxxx>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>, Anton Vorontsov <avorontsov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <20090812081731.5757.25254.sendpatchset@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- List-id: <linux-ia64.vger.kernel.org>
- References: <20090812081731.5757.25254.sendpatchset@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
* Amerigo Wang <amwang@xxxxxxxxxx> [2009-08-12 10:15]:
>
> This series of patch implements automatically reserved memory for crashkernel,
> by introducing a new boot option "crashkernel=auto". This idea is from Neil.
Honestly I don't see why everything is guarded by
CONFIG_KEXEC_AUTO_RESERVE. We do we need that new configuration
option? I mean, if I don't specify 'crashkernel=auto', then the patch
does nothing, right? Then the option CONFIG_KEXEC_AUTO_RESERVE would
only be needed so save some bytes of code. Is that really worth it?
Regards,
Bernhard
--
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
[Index of Archives]
[Linux Kernel]
[Sparc Linux]
[DCCP]
[Linux ARM]
[Yosemite News]
[Linux SCSI]
[Linux x86_64]
[Linux for Ham Radio]