[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOJsxLEU1SPd=1C8QPgrZGWeOuyOVkozuMR014xBpJTxyFviKA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 20:48:51 +0200
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
To: Jerry Hoemann <jerry.hoemann@...com>
Cc: Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"list@...ederm.org:DOCUMENTATION <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
list@...ederm.org:MEMORY MANAGEMENT <linux-mm@...ck.org>,"
<linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Early use of boot service memory
Hi Jerry,
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 7:55 PM, <jerry.hoemann@...com> wrote:
> My change does not address platforms that have misbehaving firmware.
> It just allows platforms that don't have this issue to avoid issues
> that the call to efi_reserve_boot_services presents.
The problem I have with your patch is that it (1) relies on users to
pass a kernel option and (2) leaves machines with "faulty firmware" out
in the cold. So I'm wondering if we can fix reserve_crashkernel() to
deal with reality that there indeed are broken firmware out there?
If someone is able to come up with a convincing argument why crashkernel
cannot be fixed on such machines, we'd need to start whitelisting known
good firmwares, no?
Pekka
--
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