<tt>crash-utility-bounces@redhat.com wrote on 11/09/2005 05:23:09 AM: > Badari Pulavarty wrote: > > > On Tue, 2005-11-08 at 17:17 -0500, Dave Anderson wrote: > > > Badari Pulavarty wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, 2005-11-08 at 14:52 -0500, Dave Anderson wrote: > > > > > BTW-- what kernel version introduced this change for ppc64? > > > > > > > > 4-level pagetable went into 2.6.14 for ppc64. > > > > Yuck. That reminds me that "pud_clear_bad()" is not a good > > > > choice for detecting new layout (its a generic routine - not > > > > ppc64 specific and is in 2.6.11 onwards). > > > > > > > > Funny thing is, I am not sure original crash is working > > > > on pre-2.6.14 kernel either. I see PTE_SHIFT changed from > > > > 16 to 17 in 2.6.10. I guess crash is broken from 2.6.10 > > > > onwards for ppc64. > > > > > > > > 2.6.10 onwards: > > > > #define PTE_SHIFT (17) > > > > > > > > < 2.6.10: (which crash understands) > > > > #define PTE_SHIFT (16) > > > > > > The PTE_SHIFT change was orthogonal to the intro of 4-level page tables? > > > You would think that they would be tied together, no? > > > > PTE_SHIFT is orthogonal to 4-level changes and it happened in 2.6.10. > > My point is, "crash" wouldn't work for kernels between 2.6.10-2.6.14 > > (even with my changes). > > Right -- that's what I thought you were implying. Does that bother > you guys (IBM)? I'm looking at throught Red-Hat-colored glasses, > presuming that RHEL5 will be based on 2.6.14 or later. It seems to > be a rather large hole, but I'll let you guys decide on how to best > handle it (or not) .</tt> <tt>That should be OK. We can get back to this (2.6.10-2.6.14 support) if someone wants it. </tt> <tt>Thanks</tt> <tt>Haren > > Dave > > -- > Crash-utility mailing list > Crash-utility@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility </tt>