[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190225093950.GB26145@zn.tnic>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 10:39:51 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Pingfan Liu <kernelfans@...il.com>
Cc: Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>, Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>,
Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>,
Jerry Hoemann <jerry.hoemann@....com>, x86@...nel.org,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
kexec@...ts.infradead.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, vgoyal@...hat.com,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, konrad.wilk@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv7] x86/kdump: bugfix, make the behavior of crashkernel=X
consistent with kaslr
On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 09:25:18PM +0800, Pingfan Liu wrote:
> Maybe I misunderstood you, but does "requested range failed" mean that
> user specify the range? If yes, then it should be the duty of user as
> you said later, not the duty of kernel"
No, it should say that it selected a different range only when the user
didn't specify it. Which would mean that the user didn't care about the
range - she/he only wanted to have *any* crashkernel range reserved.
I.e., crashkernel=X invocation.
> We do not know the memory layout of a system, maybe a system with
> memory less than 4GB. So it is better to try all the range of system
> memory.
Ok. If 4G fails, you set high and then try again.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists