On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 01:31:53PM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> On 02/27/18 at 01:48pm, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> > While CRASH_MAX_RANGES (== 16) seems to be good enough, fixed-number
> > array is not a good idea in general.
> >
> > In this patch, size of crash_mem buffer is calculated as before
On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 01:31:53PM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> On 02/27/18 at 01:48pm, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> > While CRASH_MAX_RANGES (== 16) seems to be good enough, fixed-number
> > array is not a good idea in general.
> >
> > In this patch, size of crash_mem buffer is calculated as before
On 02/27/18 at 01:48pm, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> While CRASH_MAX_RANGES (== 16) seems to be good enough, fixed-number
> array is not a good idea in general.
>
> In this patch, size of crash_mem buffer is calculated as before and
> the buffer is now dynamically allocated. This change also allows
On 02/27/18 at 01:48pm, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> While CRASH_MAX_RANGES (== 16) seems to be good enough, fixed-number
> array is not a good idea in general.
>
> In this patch, size of crash_mem buffer is calculated as before and
> the buffer is now dynamically allocated. This change also allows
While CRASH_MAX_RANGES (== 16) seems to be good enough, fixed-number
array is not a good idea in general.
In this patch, size of crash_mem buffer is calculated as before and
the buffer is now dynamically allocated. This change also allows removing
crash_elf_data structure.
Signed-off-by: AKASHI
While CRASH_MAX_RANGES (== 16) seems to be good enough, fixed-number
array is not a good idea in general.
In this patch, size of crash_mem buffer is calculated as before and
the buffer is now dynamically allocated. This change also allows removing
crash_elf_data structure.
Signed-off-by: AKASHI
6 matches
Mail list logo