[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50AE6542.3020302@zytor.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 09:47:46 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
CC: Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@...cle.com>, andrew.cooper3@...rix.com,
jbeulich@...e.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com, mingo@...hat.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, x86@...nel.org, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/11] kexec: introduce kexec_ops struct
The other thing that should be considered here is how utterly
preposterous the notion of doing in-guest crash dumping is in a system
that contains a hypervisor. The reason for kdump is that on bare metal
there are no other options, but in a hypervisor system the right thing
should be for the hypervisor to do the dump (possibly spawning a clean
I/O domain if the I/O domain is necessary to access the media.)
There is absolutely no reason to have a crashkernel sitting around in
each guest, consuming memory, and possibly get corrupt.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
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