Re: [PATCH v2 01/11] kexec: introduce kexec_ops struct

[H. Peter Anvin]

Bullshit.  This should be a separate domain.

Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>On 22/11/12 17:47, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> The other thing that should be considered here is how utterly 
>> preposterous the notion of doing in-guest crash dumping is in a
>system 
>> that contains a hypervisor.  The reason for kdump is that on bare
>metal 
>> there are no other options, but in a hypervisor system the right
>thing 
>> should be for the hypervisor to do the dump (possibly spawning a
>clean 
>> I/O domain if the I/O domain is necessary to access the media.)
>>
>> There is absolutely no reason to have a crashkernel sitting around in
>
>> each guest, consuming memory, and possibly get corrupt.
>>
>> 	-hpa
>>
>
>I agree that regular guests should not be using the kexec/kdump. 
>However, this patch series is required for allowing a pvops kernel to
>be
>a crash kernel for Xen, which is very important from dom0/Xen's point
>of
>view.

-- 
Sent from my mobile phone. Please excuse brevity and lack of formatting.
--
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/