On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 08:57 -0600, Milton Miller wrote:
> [removed Paul from cc and fixed Mohan's email]
>
> On Jan 6, 2009, at 5:44 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2009-01-02 at 14:46 -0600, Milton Miller wrote:
> >> @@ -94,10 +95,35 @@ void __init reserve_crashkernel(void)
> >>
[removed Paul from cc and fixed Mohan's email]
On Jan 6, 2009, at 5:44 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
On Fri, 2009-01-02 at 14:46 -0600, Milton Miller wrote:
@@ -94,10 +95,35 @@ void __init reserve_crashkernel(void)
KDUMP_KERNELBASE);
crashk_res.start = KD
On Fri, 2009-01-02 at 14:46 -0600, Milton Miller wrote:
> @@ -94,10 +95,35 @@ void __init reserve_crashkernel(void)
> KDUMP_KERNELBASE);
>
> crashk_res.start = KDUMP_KERNELBASE;
> +#else
> + if (!crashk_res.start) {
> + /*
> + * uns
Enforce that the crash kernel region never overlaps the current kernel,
as it will be written directly on kexec load.
Also, default to the previous KDUMP_KERNELBASE if the start is 0.
Other architectures (x86, ia64) state that specifying the start address
0 (or omitting it) will result in the ker
