[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A837F49.9060003@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:49:45 +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:
> * Amerigo Wang <amwang@...hat.com> [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?
>
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.
Thanks.
--
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