| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <BANLkTimCaEPVeBj_00HvqGp7j+_PUvs2Fg@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 22:12:09 +0800 From: Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> To: Kyungmin Park <kmpark@...radead.org> Cc: Stevie Trujillo <stevie.trujillo@...il.com>, marco.stornelli@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: ramoops: is using platform_drivers correct? On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Kyungmin Park <kmpark@...radead.org> wrote: > On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote: >> Huh? Is this for x86 too? Why so unfriendly for end-users? > I don't know which address is acceptable for x86, in case of ARM, each > SoCs has different SRAM address. so it's not good to define for all > SoCs and ARM. >> >> I think we need some kernel parameter like 'crashkernel=' (or memmap=) >> to reserve memory for ramoops, right? > > The first implementation is just module parameters. > ramoops.address=0x??????? ramoops.size=0x????. So I patched it as > using platform devices. > and the reason use the platform is it's dependent on each SoCs and board usage. > But the result is that this makes end-users harder to use it. Using platform API still relies on a hard-code address, at least in your example, so, why not leave it as a module parameter to let user to find the correct address? -- 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