On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:43:11 +0530
Hari Bathini wrote:
> On Monday 24 April 2017 07:30 PM, Michal Suchánek wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 18:26:37 +0530
> > Hari Bathini wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Michal.
> >>
> >>>
> >> I thinks there is a mixup here..
> >> I am no longer batting for handover a
On Monday 24 April 2017 07:30 PM, Michal Suchánek wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 18:26:37 +0530
Hari Bathini wrote:
Hi Michal.
On Monday 24 April 2017 03:54 PM, Michal Suchánek wrote:
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 00:19:55 +0530
Hari Bathini wrote:
On Wednesday 19 April 2017 07:38 PM, Michal Suchán
On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 18:26:37 +0530
Hari Bathini wrote:
> Hi Michal.
>
> On Monday 24 April 2017 03:54 PM, Michal Suchánek wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 00:19:55 +0530
> > Hari Bathini wrote:
> >
> >> On Wednesday 19 April 2017 07:38 PM, Michal Suchánek wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 14:1
Hi Michal.
On Monday 24 April 2017 03:54 PM, Michal Suchánek wrote:
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 00:19:55 +0530
Hari Bathini wrote:
On Wednesday 19 April 2017 07:38 PM, Michal Suchánek wrote:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 14:19:47 +1000
Michael Ellerman wrote:
Michal Suchánek writes:
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 00:19:55 +0530
Hari Bathini wrote:
> On Wednesday 19 April 2017 07:38 PM, Michal Suchánek wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 14:19:47 +1000
> > Michael Ellerman wrote:
> >
> >> Michal Suchánek writes:
> >>> On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 20:43:02 +0530
> >>> Hari Bathini wrote:
> >>
On Wednesday 19 April 2017 07:38 PM, Michal Suchánek wrote:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 14:19:47 +1000
Michael Ellerman wrote:
Michal Suchánek writes:
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 20:43:02 +0530
Hari Bathini wrote:
On Friday 14 April 2017 01:28 AM, Michal Suchánek wrote:
more (optional) properties canno
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 14:19:47 +1000
Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Michal Suchánek writes:
> > On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 20:43:02 +0530
> > Hari Bathini wrote:
> >> On Friday 14 April 2017 01:28 AM, Michal Suchánek wrote:
> >> > more (optional) properties cannot be added?
> >>
> >> Kernel change s
Michal Suchánek writes:
> On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 20:43:02 +0530
> Hari Bathini wrote:
>> On Friday 14 April 2017 01:28 AM, Michal Suchánek wrote:
>> > more (optional) properties cannot be added?
>>
>> Kernel change seems simple over f/w enhancement..
>
> That certainly looks so when you are a ker
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 20:43:02 +0530
Hari Bathini wrote:
> On Friday 14 April 2017 01:28 AM, Michal Suchánek wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 01:59:13 +0530
> > Hari Bathini wrote:
> >
> >> On Friday 07 April 2017 07:16 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> >>> Hari Bathini writes:
> On Friday 0
On Friday 14 April 2017 01:28 AM, Michal Suchánek wrote:
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 01:59:13 +0530
Hari Bathini wrote:
On Friday 07 April 2017 07:16 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
Hari Bathini writes:
On Friday 07 April 2017 07:24 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
My preference would be that the fadump
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 01:59:13 +0530
Hari Bathini wrote:
> On Friday 07 April 2017 07:16 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > Hari Bathini writes:
> >> On Friday 07 April 2017 07:24 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> >>> My preference would be that the fadump kernel "just works". If
> >>> it's using too
On Friday 07 April 2017 07:16 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
Hari Bathini writes:
On Friday 07 April 2017 07:24 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
My preference would be that the fadump kernel "just works". If it's
using too much memory then the fadump kernel should do whatever it needs
to use less me
Hi Michael,
On Friday 07 April 2017 07:16 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
Hari Bathini writes:
On Friday 07 April 2017 07:24 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
My preference would be that the fadump kernel "just works". If it's
using too much memory then the fadump kernel should do whatever it needs
to
Hari Bathini writes:
> On Friday 07 April 2017 07:24 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> My preference would be that the fadump kernel "just works". If it's
>> using too much memory then the fadump kernel should do whatever it needs
>> to use less memory, eg. shrinking nr_cpu_ids etc.
>
>> Do we actual
On Friday 07 April 2017 12:54 PM, Hari Bathini wrote:
Hi Michael,
On Friday 07 April 2017 07:24 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
Hari Bathini writes:
In case of fadump, capture (fadump) kernel boots like a normal kernel.
While this has its advantages, the capture kernel would initialize all
th
Hi Michael,
On Friday 07 April 2017 07:24 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
Hari Bathini writes:
In case of fadump, capture (fadump) kernel boots like a normal kernel.
While this has its advantages, the capture kernel would initialize all
the components like normal kernel, which may not necessaril
Hari Bathini writes:
> In case of fadump, capture (fadump) kernel boots like a normal kernel.
> While this has its advantages, the capture kernel would initialize all
> the components like normal kernel, which may not necessarily be needed
> for a typical dump capture kernel. So, fadump capture k
In case of fadump, capture (fadump) kernel boots like a normal kernel.
While this has its advantages, the capture kernel would initialize all
the components like normal kernel, which may not necessarily be needed
for a typical dump capture kernel. So, fadump capture kernel ends up
needing more memo
18 matches
Mail list logo