On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 02:14:18PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 02:50:18PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Vivek Goyal <vgo...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > So it is a forgone conclusion that these new kernel changes to > > > crashkernel=X in 3.9 are incompatible with older kexec-tools and one > > > needs to upgrade kexec-tools. > > > > I thought that you and hpa all agreed that user need to update kexec-tools > > with > > new kernel v3.9. It that still right? > > I can update kexec-tools and I don't have problems with that. I am only > concerned about some xyz user complaining that new kernel stopped working > with old kexec-tools and then possibly face the rant from Linus about > breaking user space. :-) > > To me we could maintain backward compatibility by retaining the existing > behavior of crashkernle=X. That is look for specificied memory below > 896M first and then go higher. > > And hide new semantics behind new kernel parameters or by extending > existing parameter (say crashkernel=X:search_high_first) to specify how > to search for reserved memory. > > In both the cases we should probably retain the logic of auto reserving > low memory for software iotlb and let user opt out if there is no need. > > So we don't have a strong reason that why we should break existing > kexec-tools. So I would prefer not to break it. > > But I think this is hpa's decision.
hpa, ping. Any thoughts on this? 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/
