Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] kexec: allow relaxed placement specification via command line

[Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 07:48:26AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Rather than just allowing a fixed address or fully automatic placement,
> also allow for specifying an upper bound. Especially on EFI systems,
> where firmware memory use is commonly less predictable than on legacy
> BIOS ones, this makes success of the reservation more likely when
> automatic placement is not an option (e.g. because of special DMA
> restrictions of devices involved in actually carrying out the dump).
>
> Also take the opportunity to actually add text to the "crashkernel"
> entry in the command line option doc.

Thank you for posting this.

> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>
> --- a/docs/misc/xen-command-line.markdown
> +++ b/docs/misc/xen-command-line.markdown
> @@ -458,7 +458,18 @@ Specify the maximum address to allocate
>  combination with the `low_crashinfo` command line option.
>
>  ### crashkernel
> -> `= <ramsize-range>:<size>[,...][@<offset>]`
> +> `= <ramsize-range>:<size>[,...][{@,<}<offset>]`
> +> `= <size>[{@,<}<offset>]`
> +
> +Specify sizes and optionally placement of the kexec reservation area.

Should not we use "crash kernel reservation" instead of "kexec reservation"?
Kexec is a bit different thing and does not need upfront memory reservations.

> +The `<ramsize-range>:<size>' pairs indicate how much memory to set
> +aside for kexec (`<size>') for a given range of installed RAM

Ditto.

Otherwise Reviewed-by: Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@xxxxxxxxxx>

Daniel

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel