[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090813053952.GA9037@mail1.bwalle.de>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 07:39:52 +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
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 ...
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