Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] [patch 06/16] Kexec/Kdump: honour non-zero crashkernel offset

[Horms <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 03:38:31PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 17:28 +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> 
> > Index: linux-2.6.18-xen.hg/arch/ia64/kernel/setup.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.18-xen.hg.orig/arch/ia64/kernel/setup.c       2007-07-09 
> > 15:00:34.000000000 +0900
> > +++ linux-2.6.18-xen.hg/arch/ia64/kernel/setup.c    2007-07-09 
> > 15:03:32.000000000 +0900
> > @@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ reserve_memory (void)
> >  
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_KEXEC
> >     /* crashkernel=size@offset specifies the size to reserve for a crash
> > -    * kernel.(offset is ingored for keep compatibility with other archs)
> > +    * kernel. If offset is 0, then it is determined automatically.
> >      * By reserving this memory we guarantee that linux never set's it
> >      * up as a DMA target.Useful for holding code to do something
> >      * appropriate after a kernel panic.
> > @@ -310,10 +310,16 @@ reserve_memory (void)
> >  #ifndef CONFIG_XEN
> >             if (from) {
> >                     size = memparse(from + 12, &from);
> > +                   if (*from == '@')
> > +                           base = memparse(from+1, &from);
> > +                   else
> > +                           base = 0;
> >                     if (size) {
> > -                           sort_regions(rsvd_region, n);
> > -                           base = kdump_find_rsvd_region(size,
> > -                           rsvd_region, n);
> > +                           if (!base) {
> > +                                   sort_regions(rsvd_region, n);
> > +                                   base = kdump_find_rsvd_region(size,
> > +                                                           rsvd_region, n);
> > +                                   }
> >                             if (base != ~0UL) {
> 
>    I don't understand why we want this change in our kernel.  Its
> changing code within #ifndef CONFIG_XEN.  Should this just be fixed
> upstream and we'll absorb it at the next merge up?  thanks,

This change is a backport of a change that has already been committed to
Linus' tree. I believe it was included in 2.6.22, possibly before. I can
just drop this change from my patchset if you like. However, I think
that it makes sense to keep it in given that a backport of ia64 kexec is
included in this series, and this change is really just part of that.

-- 
Horms
  H: http://www.vergenet.net/~horms/
  W: http://www.valinux.co.jp/en/


_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel