[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51647B21.6070402@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 13:33:37 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
CC: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, WANG Chao <chaowang@...hat.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] x86, kdump: Change crashkernel_high/low= to crashkernel=;high/low
On 04/09/2013 01:29 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 01:24:46PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 04/09/2013 01:05 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So crashkernel=X@Y;high is a valid syntax? Looks like we will reserve
>>>> X amount of RAM at base Y and ignore "high" or "low".
>>>
>>> yes, we should reject them.
>>>
>>
>> What if there isn't X amount of RAM available at base Y?
>
> We don't reserve anything.
>
> In this context crashkernel=X@Y,high is invalid syntax and should probably
> be ignored by parser. The very fact user specified the offset, high or
> low option does not carry any meaning.
>
> crashkernel=X,high is valid though.
>
Yes, if the offset being invalid is an error, that is the right
behavior, I would think.
-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