On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 7:02 AM, Vivek Goyal <vgo...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:11:51PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote: > > Hence both crashkernel=xM and crashkernel=XM,high have their own usage. > We have been using crashkernel=xM and we know it works. So extending it > to be able to allocate memory from higher regions, if sufficient memory > is not available in lower regions makes sense. Memory reservation below > 4G is more efficient due to not requiring swiotlb. And crashkernel=xM > has been working for us and users are familiar with it. > > So I don't see a point that why would you try to block any move to > extend crashkernel=xM semantics.
Make the thing simple. Keep them separately, leave crashkernel=xM to old kexec-tools mostly and keep crashkernel=xM,high to newer kexec-tools as needed. Thanks Yinghai -- 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/
