On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 12:34:00PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote: > On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Vivek Goyal <vgo...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Not breaking existing cases makes sense to me. > > that is -v2 version: > try 896M, then try 4G, than MAXMEM. > > > May be we should use > > a new parameter crashkernel_high to force memory reservation above > > 4G and crashkernel=X continues to reserve memory at lower addresses > > and remains backward compatible. > > No need to use crashkernel_high, we can just cashkernel=X@Y instead.
crashkernel=X@Y is little different. It assumes user knows the memory map and location "Y" is fixed. There might not be any memory at "Y". So it is not same. Thanks Vivek -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
