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: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 11:03:35 +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: <4A83CCAA.1030302@xxxxxxxxxx>
- List-id: <linux-ia64.vger.kernel.org>
- References: <20090812081731.5757.25254.sendpatchset@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20090812124659.GA4808@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4A837F49.9060003@xxxxxxxxxx> <20090813053952.GA9037@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4A83CCAA.1030302@xxxxxxxxxx>
- User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
* Amerigo Wang <amwang@xxxxxxxxxx> [2009-08-13 10:19]:
> Sure.
>
> But if we disable CONFIG_KEXEC_AUTO_RESERVE, that means
> crashkernel=auto will be invalid, this is the same as it is now.
Ok, but since 'crashkernel=auto' is not used today, nobody has
'crashkernel=auto' in the bootloader configuration. So I don't see any
practial advantage of that config option.
Eric, what's your opinion on that, do we need a config option
CONFIG_KEXEC_AUTO_RESERVE or could we just implement that feature
unconditionally (if CONFIG_KEXEC is enabled, of course).
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]