[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C47E7C9.60608@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:40:09 +0800
From: Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, nhorman@...hat.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [Patch] kexec: increase max of kexec segments and use dynamic
allocation
On 07/22/10 14:28, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Amerigo Wang<amwang@...hat.com> writes:
>
>> Currently KEXEC_SEGMENT_MAX is only 16 which is too small for machine with
>> many memory ranges. Increase this hard limit to 1024 which is reasonably large,
>> and change ->segment from a static array to a dynamically allocated memory.
>
> ???
>
> This should be about segments in the executable being loaded. What
> executable has one segment for each range of physical memory?
>
> Not that generalizing this is a bad idea but with a comment that
> seems entirely wrong I am wondering what the problem really is.
>
Ah, I think Neil should explain this.
He made a patch which includes many memory ranges, caused kexec
fails to load the kernel. Increasing this limit and the corresponding
one in kexec-tools fixes the problem. His patch is not in upstream
kexec-tools, AFAIK.
However, even if we don't consider that patch, isn't 16 too small too?
Thanks.
--
The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference.
- Elie Wiesel
--
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