[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAL01qpsb5_Gh31uqm7yB6HP2rKQkhFWWTu+U4JAR54XR5bfbZw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 12:53:19 +0100
From: "Fleming, Matt" <matt.fleming@...el.com>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Cc: Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>, "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] export efi.flags to sysfs
On 28 May 2014 15:51, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:09:35AM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
>
> [..]
>> > I've only vaguely been following along with the other thread, so please
>> > summarise everything again in your patch. Particularly, I need answers
>> > to the following questions,
>> >
>> > - Are you trying to fix a kexec/kdump regression?
>>
>> Somehow it is a regression.
>
> Well, it is a *regression*. Previously kdump would work with
> SGI UV machines as it used "noefi". Now kexec by default thinks that
> efi is enabled and 1:1 mappings are in place and that does not work
> with SGI UV machines.
So, if someone boots an SGI UV machine with the "noefi" kernel command
line parameter, the kernel still creates
/sys/firmware/efi/runtime-map/ ? Why does kexec/kdump think a kernel
booted with "noefi" supports EFI?
Or are we talking about a different "noefi" parameter?
--
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