[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080805101411.GA18192@verge.net.au>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 20:14:15 +1000
From: Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
kexec@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: kdump, ia64: always reserve elfcore header memory in crash
kernel
On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 02:54:42AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 19:48:27 +1000 Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au> wrote:
>
> > elfcore header memory needs to be reserved in a crash kernel.
> > This means that the relevant code should be protected
> > by CONFIG_CRASH_DUMP rather than CONFIG_PROC_VMCORE.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
> >
> > ---
> > Andrew, this patch fixes bug in the (unlikely) case where
> > an ia64 crashdump kernel does not have CONFIG_PROC_FS set.
> > I think it is worth including in 2.6.27. But breakage cases are
> > likely to be minimal to non-existent, so I am comfortable
> > with post 2.6.27 too.
> >
> > This patch should be appended to the series,
> > "is_kdump_kernel() cleanup and related patches".
>
> hm, that means that we would need to apply a moderate-size seven patch
> series to fix one little bug.
>
> I think that if we want to fix this in 2.6.27 then the basic single
> patch would be preferable. Or we leave it until 2.6.28/
I think it would be better to wait until 2.6.28 than mess around
with a minimal and then a proper fix. I doubt that anyone is hitting
this.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists