On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 3:34 PM Baoquan He <b...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 03/29/19 at 03:25pm, Pingfan Liu wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 2:27 PM Baoquan He <b...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 03/29/19 at 01:45pm, Pingfan Liu wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 4:34 PM Baoquan He <b...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 03/22/19 at 03:52pm, Baoquan He wrote: > > > > > > On 03/22/19 at 03:43pm, Pingfan Liu wrote: > > > > > > > > > +/* parse crashkernel=x@y option */ > > > > > > > > > +static void mem_avoid_crashkernel_simple(char *option) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chao ever mentioned this, I want to ask again, why does it has > > > > > > > > to be > > > > > > > > xxx_simple()? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seems that I had replied Chao's question in another email. The > > > > > > > naming > > > > > > > follows the function parse_crashkernel_simple(), as the notes > > > > > > > above > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, I don't get. typo? > > > > > > > > > > OK, I misunderstood it. We do have parse_crashkernel_simple() to > > > > > handle > > > > > crashkernel=size[@offset] case, to differente with other complicated > > > > > cases, like crashkernel=size,[high|low], > > > > > > > > > > Then I am fine with this naming. Soryy about the noise. > > > > > > > > > > By the way, do you think if we should take care of this case: > > > > > crashkernel=<range1>:<size1>[,<range2>:<size2>,...][@offset] > > > > > > > > > > It can also specify @offset. Not sure if it's too complicated, you may > > > > > have a investigation. > > > > > > > > > In this case, kernel should get the total memory size info. So > > > > process_e820_entries() or process_efi_entries() should be called > > > > twice. One before handle_mem_options(), so crashkernel can evaluate > > > > the reserved size. It is doable, and what is your opinion about the > > > > > > You mean calling process_e820_entries to calculate the RAM size in > > > system? I may not do like that, please check what __find_max_addr() is > > > doing. Did I get it? > > > > Yes, you got my meaning. But __find_max_addr() relies on the info, fed > > by e820__memblock_setup(). It also involves the iteration of all e820 > > entries to get the max address. No essential difference, right? > > Hmm, I would say iterating e820 or efi entries to get the mas addr should be > different with calling process_e820_entries(). The 1st is much simpler, > right? > Yes. My original meaning is to reuse process_e820_entries(), but does not call process_mem_region() at the first time.
Thanks, Pingfan