From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C510C43381 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 08:32:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D7C820880 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 08:32:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=alien8.de header.i=@alien8.de header.b="BTFflSEh" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726275AbfBTIcx (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Feb 2019 03:32:53 -0500 Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([5.9.137.197]:53038 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726030AbfBTIcx (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Feb 2019 03:32:53 -0500 Received: from zn.tnic (p200300EC2BCB850030ABB3F32F386BA9.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [IPv6:2003:ec:2bcb:8500:30ab:b3f3:2f38:6ba9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.skyhub.de (SuperMail on ZX Spectrum 128k) with ESMTPSA id 5CA631EC0253; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 09:32:51 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alien8.de; s=dkim; t=1550651571; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=j8C4i8UUyK35XNWlsOAQTDRWY0jXzQaWWSVBWTwc+9A=; b=BTFflSEhaVqoYgYs7dMm4da81NyfqrHTAsV8M7paS12Tun4Ikg6PzGtTJibmQMJM/EqpSm 153CggOR541BQEALhtJOGFOzNXmZnHBIltQGKc2aEpRWGxfTv0CPd8KESextLcEWaNTsOY 4YKeLAYeGhwoDdRYqgcq8ocj223UlOQ= Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 09:32:41 +0100 From: Borislav Petkov To: Dave Young Cc: bhe@redhat.com, Jerry Hoemann , x86@kernel.org, Randy Dunlap , kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Pingfan Liu , Mike Rapoport , Andrew Morton , yinghai@kernel.org, vgoyal@redhat.com, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, konrad.wilk@oracle.com Subject: Re: [PATCHv7] x86/kdump: bugfix, make the behavior of crashkernel=X consistent with kaslr Message-ID: <20190220083241.GA3447@zn.tnic> References: <20190131075907.GB19091@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com> <20190131105732.GC6749@zn.tnic> <20190131222732.GA946@anatevka> <20190131234740.GO6749@zn.tnic> <20190204223016.GB11986@anatevka> <20190205081552.GG21801@zn.tnic> <20190206120804.GC10062@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com> <20190211204816.GB21473@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com> <20190215102458.GD10433@zn.tnic> <20190218014820.GA10711@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190218014820.GA10711@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 09:48:20AM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > It is ideal if kernel can do it automatically, but I'm not sure if > kernel can predict the swiotlb reserved size automatically. Do you see how even more absurd this gets? If the kernel cannot know the swiotlb reserved size automatically, how is the normal user even supposed to know?! I see swiotlb_size_or_default() so we have a sane default which we fall back to. Now where's the problem with that? -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.