* Vivek Goyal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-10-16 07:49]: > > Shouldn't bootmem allocator have the functionality to flag an error if > we try to reserve a memory which is already reserved? I see that bootmem > allocator is currently printing a warning under CONFIG_DEBUG_BOOTMEM.
That's probably better, yes. See the next version. > Wouldn't it be better if we reserve the code, data and bss memory also > using bootmem allocator and when somebody tries to reserve craskernel memory > and if there is an overlap, boot memory allocator should scream? It's already marked as reserved. At least on i386 in my test. > In second patch, you are checking for crash kernel reserved memory being > beyond _end. That will make sure that there is no overlap with kernel > text, data or bss. I am wondering then why do we need first patch and > why should we register bss memory in the resources list. Second patch > would make sure that there is no overlap with crash kernel memory and kexec > will not place any segment outside crashkernel memory. I think we should also present the BSS to the user like we present text and data. Thanks, Bernhard - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
