[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090813090335.GA9502@mail1.bwalle.de>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 11:03:35 +0200
From: Bernhard Walle <bernhard.walle@....de>
To: Amerigo Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
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
* Amerigo Wang <amwang@...hat.com> [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-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