Re: Determine version of kernel that produced vmcore

[Dan Aloni]

On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 08:35:41PM +0300, Dan Aloni wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 01:17:40PM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 08:30:37PM +0530, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > I am still thinking that why can't we change initrd building process
> > > (Be it mkinitrd or mkdumprd depending on distriution). Whole idea is
> > > that while building an initrd/initramfs for the first kernel, one will
> > > ask user for kdump kernel (if user wishes to load kdump kenrel through
> > > initrd) and then it will generate kdump kenrel's initrd and pack into
> > > first kernel's initrd.
> > > 
> > > So steps would look something like this.
> > > 
> > > - mkinitrd takes second kernel's vmlinux as argument
> > > - mkinitrd runs "makedumpfile -g" on debug version of first kernel's vmlinux.
> > > - mkinitrd generates the initramfs for kdump kernel and packs output
> > >   of "makedumpfile -g" into that.
> > > - mkinitrd packs statically linked kexec, kdump kernel vmlinux/bzImage,
> > >   and kdump kernel initramfs into first kernel's initramfs.
> > > 
> > Agreed, this is exactly what happens right now.
> 
> Isn't there some sort of a circular dependency going on here? As I 
> understand it the vmlinux binary already contains the initramfs as 
> built-in data (at least that's what I use here for initramfs). It 
> makes more sense if you guys are creating an _initrd_ image (that's 
> what mkinitrd originally did AFAIK) and supply it to the boot-loader.

I see you are using an _external_ initramfs image. Sorry, I forgot 
that option existed...

-- 
Dan Aloni
XIV LTD, http://www.xivstorage.com
da-x (at) monatomic.org, dan (at) xiv.co.il
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/