On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 18:06 +1000, Michael Neuling wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > > On Wednesday 11 June 2008, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > > On Wed, 2008-06-11 at 18:28 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > We used to do this correctly in case of a user triggered > > > > kexec, but not for kdump. > > > > > > Used to? > > > > Sorry, wrong wording. I meant without this patch, it's correct > > for kexec. > > > > > > This patch disables ptcal from the cell specific > > > > machine_crash_shutdown() callback. > > > > > > I'd rather you used the crash_shutdown_register() infrastructure Mikey > > > added for EHEA - it's designed for just this sort of thing. > > > > Thanks for pointing this out, I wasn't aware of that call. > > New patch coming up. > > In theory we can register lots of call backs but currently the maximum > is set to 1 through CRASH_HANDLER_MAX. This is to discourage people > from using this infrastructure at all.
Yeah true. In this case I think it's the less horrible solution to something that's fundamentally kdump-unfriendly. > Unless there's some crazy arse company that's going to mix a CBE with an > eHEA, we are probably ok leaving this at 1. Right? No comment *cough*. I guess I'd say just increase it to 2 on the off chance, can't hurt much. cheers -- Michael Ellerman OzLabs, IBM Australia Development Lab wwweb: http://michael.ellerman.id.au phone: +61 2 6212 1183 (tie line 70 21183) We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children. - S.M.A.R.T Person
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
