On 03/11/2013 01:19 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> The problem with this argument here is that we are spiraling down the
> drain of increasing user-visible complexity in order to not break
> existing but exotic use cases. We need to stop and reverse this trend.
> I want to make a few observations on this:
>
> 1. Running with an archaic kexec-tools should be considered an anomaly.
> If necessary, we could introduce a kernel option to let the kernel know
> which kexec-tools version the user will use.
>
> 2. As long as memory is available, there is always the option to shift
> memory around to accommodate the crashkernel. That probably should have
> been done all along.
>
> 3. The memory size reserved should be deduced automatically to the
> greatest possible extent.
>
The really big picture problem here is that the host kernel is expected
to predict at boot time what will happen in the future: what are the
requirements of the kdump kernel, and its tools, which hasn't been
loaded yet?
Can we get past that as a fundamental problem?
-hpa
--
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/
