On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:13:08PM -0700, jerry.hoem...@hp.com wrote: [..] > > Is it possible to fix it the way hpa suggested? > > I think the changes to enable ,high is a step in the > right direction. its an improvement But it is still green. > > We are having lots more problems w/ upstream kdump than we are having > w/ the kdump in distros. > > So, to answer your question with a slight twist: > > Is it possible to back ports lots of green code across multiple > versions and distros and get a bug free user experiences? I guess so. > > is it the right way to go? i personally don't think so. > > but hey, others may have a different view.
I agree that backporting a fix/hack to not reserve EFI boot memory on certain platform is much easier as compared to backporting capability to boot from higher memory addresses. I also agree that crashkernel=X,high support is very new and it has yet to go though a wide spread testing to confirm that it works well with wide variety of machines. And this also makes a case to stick to crashkernel=X for older releases and just backport a fix to not reserve EFI boot time memory. Thanks Vivek -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
