[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F1E06A8F1@ORSMSX108.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 21:38:52 +0000
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: Xishi Qiu <qiuxishi@...wei.com>
CC: "Fleming, Matt" <matt.fleming@...el.com>,
"Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Liujiang <jiang.liu@...wei.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>,
WuJianguo <wujianguo@...wei.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH V3] ia64/mm: fix a bad_page bug when crash kernel booting
> In efi_init() memory aligns in IA64_GRANULE_SIZE(16M). If set "crashkernel=1024M-:600M"
Is this where the real problem begins? Should we insist that users provide crashkernel
parameters rounded to GRANULE boundaries?
-Tony
Powered by blists - more mailing lists