[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A83CCAA.1030302@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 16:19:54 +0800
From: Amerigo Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
To: Bernhard Walle <bernhard.walle@....de>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tony.luck@...el.com,
linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, Neil Horman <nhorman@...hat.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Anton Vorontsov <avorontsov@...mvista.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch 0/8] V3 Implement crashkernel=auto
Bernhard Walle wrote:
> Hi,
>
> * Amerigo Wang <amwang@...hat.com> [2009-08-13 04:49]:
>
>> Bernhard Walle wrote:
>>
>>> 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?
>>>
>> Hi, CONFIG_KEXEC_AUTO_RESERVE is not for saving bytes, it just
>> provides a choice for the user to decide to enable it or not.
>>
>
> Still, I don't understand it. When I don't say "crashkernel=auto" on
> command line, then nothing is done, right? So the choice for the user
> is the "crashkernel=auto". Why do we need CONFIG_KEXEC_AUTO_RESERVE
> then? Maybe I just missed something in my logic ...
>
Sure.
But if we disable CONFIG_KEXEC_AUTO_RESERVE, that means crashkernel=auto
will be invalid, this is the same as it is now.
--
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