[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120215041608.GA15258@bloggs.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:16:09 +1100
From: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
To: Mahesh J Salgaonkar <mahesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...abs.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>,
Amerigo Wang <amwang@...hat.com>,
Kexec-ml <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>,
Milton Miller <miltonm@....com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v6 00/10] fadump: Firmware-assisted dump support for
Powerpc.
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 12:19:59PM +0530, Mahesh J Salgaonkar wrote:
> The most of the code implementation has been adapted from phyp assisted dump
> implementation written by Linas Vepstas and Manish Ahuja.
When you repost the series, please be explicit about what the
relationship between the new fadump facility and the old phyp-dump
is, both in the documentation you're adding and in the patch
descriptions.
I gather that fadump uses the same firmware interfaces as phyp-dump,
and can be characterised as a rewrite of phyp-dump. It would be good
if you would explicitly mention:
- What advantages fadump has over phyp-dump
- Whether there are any capabilities that phyp-dump does that fadump
doesn't
- What is different between fadump and phyp-dump in the interface to
usermode code
- Any user-visible differences between how fadump operates compared to
phyp-dump. For example, will users see a difference in how much
memory is available to the kernel?
Paul.
--
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