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

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 01.06.16 at 12:26, <daniel.kiper@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.

Good idea, done.

>> +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>

Thanks, Jan


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