* kexec update (2.6.0-test7)
@ 2003-10-09 0:22 Randy.Dunlap
2003-10-09 4:04 ` [Fastboot] " Cherry George Mathew
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Randy.Dunlap @ 2003-10-09 0:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lkml; +Cc: fastboot
Hi,
I've updated the kexec patch for 2.6.0-test7.
It can be found at
http://developer.osdl.org/rddunlap/kexec/2.6.0-test7/kexec-260t7.patch
A slightly different version of it can also be found in the
-osdl patchset at
http://developer.osdl.org/shemminger/patches/2.6/2.6.0-test7/
The userspace tools are at
http://www.xmission.com/~ebiederm/files/kexec/
You'll need to update the kexec-syscall.c file for the correct
kexec syscall number (274).
I intend to try to automate this (somehow).
Feedback/patches welcome.
--
~Randy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fastboot] kexec update (2.6.0-test7)
2003-10-09 0:22 kexec update (2.6.0-test7) Randy.Dunlap
@ 2003-10-09 4:04 ` Cherry George Mathew
2003-10-09 18:40 ` Eric W. Biederman
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Cherry George Mathew @ 2003-10-09 4:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Randy.Dunlap; +Cc: lkml, fastboot
On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> You'll need to update the kexec-syscall.c file for the correct
> kexec syscall number (274).
Is there a consensus about what the syscall number will finally be ? We've
jumped from 256 to 274 over the 2.5.x+ series kernels. Or is it the law
the Jungle ?
--
cherry@sdf.lonestar.org
Homepage - http://cherry.freeshell.org
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fastboot] kexec update (2.6.0-test7)
2003-10-09 4:04 ` [Fastboot] " Cherry George Mathew
@ 2003-10-09 18:40 ` Eric W. Biederman
2003-10-09 21:02 ` Bill Davidsen
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Eric W. Biederman @ 2003-10-09 18:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Cherry George Mathew; +Cc: Randy.Dunlap, fastboot, lkml
Cherry George Mathew <cherry@sdf.lonestar.org> writes:
> On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
>
> > You'll need to update the kexec-syscall.c file for the correct
> > kexec syscall number (274).
>
> Is there a consensus about what the syscall number will finally be ? We've
> jumped from 256 to 274 over the 2.5.x+ series kernels. Or is it the law
> the Jungle ?
So far the law of the jungle. Regardless of the rest it looks like it
is time to submit a place keeping patch.
Eric
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fastboot] kexec update (2.6.0-test7)
2003-10-09 18:40 ` Eric W. Biederman
@ 2003-10-09 21:02 ` Bill Davidsen
2003-10-09 21:18 ` Steven Cole
2003-10-09 21:27 ` bill davidsen
2 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Bill Davidsen @ 2003-10-09 21:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
In article <m1y8vufe5l.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>,
Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:
>Cherry George Mathew <cherry@sdf.lonestar.org> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
>>
>> > You'll need to update the kexec-syscall.c file for the correct
>> > kexec syscall number (274).
>>
>> Is there a consensus about what the syscall number will finally be ? We've
>> jumped from 256 to 274 over the 2.5.x+ series kernels. Or is it the law
>> the Jungle ?
>
>So far the law of the jungle. Regardless of the rest it looks like it
>is time to submit a place keeping patch.
>
>Eric
>-
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
--
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fastboot] kexec update (2.6.0-test7)
2003-10-09 18:40 ` Eric W. Biederman
2003-10-09 21:02 ` Bill Davidsen
@ 2003-10-09 21:18 ` Steven Cole
2003-10-09 21:27 ` bill davidsen
2 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Steven Cole @ 2003-10-09 21:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric W. Biederman
Cc: Cherry George Mathew, Randy.Dunlap, fastboot, lkml, Hans Reiser
On Thu, 2003-10-09 at 12:40, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Cherry George Mathew <cherry@sdf.lonestar.org> writes:
>
> > On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> >
> > > You'll need to update the kexec-syscall.c file for the correct
> > > kexec syscall number (274).
> >
> > Is there a consensus about what the syscall number will finally be ? We've
> > jumped from 256 to 274 over the 2.5.x+ series kernels. Or is it the law
> > the Jungle ?
>
> So far the law of the jungle. Regardless of the rest it looks like it
> is time to submit a place keeping patch.
>
> Eric
> -
And if Linus takes that patch, Hans should do the same for __NR_reiser4
for the same reason.
Steven
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fastboot] kexec update (2.6.0-test7)
2003-10-09 18:40 ` Eric W. Biederman
2003-10-09 21:02 ` Bill Davidsen
2003-10-09 21:18 ` Steven Cole
@ 2003-10-09 21:27 ` bill davidsen
2003-10-10 1:33 ` Randy.Dunlap
2 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: bill davidsen @ 2003-10-09 21:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
In article <m1y8vufe5l.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>,
Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:
| Cherry George Mathew <cherry@sdf.lonestar.org> writes:
|
| > On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
| >
| > > You'll need to update the kexec-syscall.c file for the correct
| > > kexec syscall number (274).
| >
| > Is there a consensus about what the syscall number will finally be ? We've
| > jumped from 256 to 274 over the 2.5.x+ series kernels. Or is it the law
| > the Jungle ?
|
| So far the law of the jungle. Regardless of the rest it looks like it
| is time to submit a place keeping patch.
Forgive me if the politics of this have changed, but will a place
keeping patch be accepted for a feature which has not?
--
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fastboot] kexec update (2.6.0-test7)
2003-10-09 21:27 ` bill davidsen
@ 2003-10-10 1:33 ` Randy.Dunlap
2003-10-11 13:57 ` Bill Davidsen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Randy.Dunlap @ 2003-10-10 1:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bill davidsen; +Cc: linux-kernel
On 9 Oct 2003 21:27:35 GMT davidsen@tmr.com (bill davidsen) wrote:
| In article <m1y8vufe5l.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>,
| Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:
| | Cherry George Mathew <cherry@sdf.lonestar.org> writes:
| |
| | > On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
| | >
| | > > You'll need to update the kexec-syscall.c file for the correct
| | > > kexec syscall number (274).
| | >
| | > Is there a consensus about what the syscall number will finally be ? We've
| | > jumped from 256 to 274 over the 2.5.x+ series kernels. Or is it the law
| | > the Jungle ?
| |
| | So far the law of the jungle. Regardless of the rest it looks like it
| | is time to submit a place keeping patch.
|
| Forgive me if the politics of this have changed, but will a place
| keeping patch be accepted for a feature which has not?
Like the one recently added for "vserver" ??
#define __NR_vserver 273
and
.long sys_ni_syscall /* sys_vserver */
(ni == not implemented)
But I don't think that it's quite time for a placeholder syscall number
(IMO of course). Eric can submit one though.
--
~Randy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fastboot] kexec update (2.6.0-test7)
2003-10-10 1:33 ` Randy.Dunlap
@ 2003-10-11 13:57 ` Bill Davidsen
2003-10-11 16:49 ` Randy.Dunlap
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Bill Davidsen @ 2003-10-11 13:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Randy.Dunlap; +Cc: linux-kernel
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> On 9 Oct 2003 21:27:35 GMT davidsen@tmr.com (bill davidsen) wrote:
>
> | In article <m1y8vufe5l.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>,
> | Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:
> | | Cherry George Mathew <cherry@sdf.lonestar.org> writes:
> | |
> | | > On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> | | >
> | | > > You'll need to update the kexec-syscall.c file for the correct
> | | > > kexec syscall number (274).
> | | >
> | | > Is there a consensus about what the syscall number will finally be ? We've
> | | > jumped from 256 to 274 over the 2.5.x+ series kernels. Or is it the law
> | | > the Jungle ?
> | |
> | | So far the law of the jungle. Regardless of the rest it looks like it
> | | is time to submit a place keeping patch.
> |
> | Forgive me if the politics of this have changed, but will a place
> | keeping patch be accepted for a feature which has not?
>
> Like the one recently added for "vserver" ??
>
> #define __NR_vserver 273
>
> and
>
> .long sys_ni_syscall /* sys_vserver */
> (ni == not implemented)
>
> But I don't think that it's quite time for a placeholder syscall number
> (IMO of course). Eric can submit one though.
No, I wasn't clear. The question was if (a) Linus is still opposed to the
implementation, and (b) if any new feature will make it into 2.6, given
the "only fix bugs" edict recently.
--
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fastboot] kexec update (2.6.0-test7)
2003-10-11 13:57 ` Bill Davidsen
@ 2003-10-11 16:49 ` Randy.Dunlap
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Randy.Dunlap @ 2003-10-11 16:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bill Davidsen; +Cc: linux-kernel
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 09:57:15 -0400 (EDT) Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> wrote:
| On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
|
| > On 9 Oct 2003 21:27:35 GMT davidsen@tmr.com (bill davidsen) wrote:
| >
| > | In article <m1y8vufe5l.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>,
| > | Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:
| > | | Cherry George Mathew <cherry@sdf.lonestar.org> writes:
| > | |
| > | | > On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
| > | | >
| > | | > > You'll need to update the kexec-syscall.c file for the correct
| > | | > > kexec syscall number (274).
| > | | >
| > | | > Is there a consensus about what the syscall number will finally be ? We've
| > | | > jumped from 256 to 274 over the 2.5.x+ series kernels. Or is it the law
| > | | > the Jungle ?
| > | |
| > | | So far the law of the jungle. Regardless of the rest it looks like it
| > | | is time to submit a place keeping patch.
| > |
| > | Forgive me if the politics of this have changed, but will a place
| > | keeping patch be accepted for a feature which has not?
| >
| > Like the one recently added for "vserver" ??
| >
| > #define __NR_vserver 273
| >
| > and
| >
| > .long sys_ni_syscall /* sys_vserver */
| > (ni == not implemented)
| >
| > But I don't think that it's quite time for a placeholder syscall number
| > (IMO of course). Eric can submit one though.
|
| No, I wasn't clear. The question was if (a) Linus is still opposed to the
| implementation, and (b) if any new feature will make it into 2.6, given
| the "only fix bugs" edict recently.
I don't know the answer to (a). I don't even recall what caused it
to be dropped from -mm a few months ago, but I should look that up,
or if anyone recalls, please refresh my memory.
Unless 2.6 is much different from past kernel versions, new features
can be added after 2.6.0-final is out, usually if they are well-contained,
like a new driver or filesystem. I don't see this as a big hurdle.
--
~Randy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-10-11 16:50 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-10-09 0:22 kexec update (2.6.0-test7) Randy.Dunlap
2003-10-09 4:04 ` [Fastboot] " Cherry George Mathew
2003-10-09 18:40 ` Eric W. Biederman
2003-10-09 21:02 ` Bill Davidsen
2003-10-09 21:18 ` Steven Cole
2003-10-09 21:27 ` bill davidsen
2003-10-10 1:33 ` Randy.Dunlap
2003-10-11 13:57 ` Bill Davidsen
2003-10-11 16:49 ` Randy.Dunlap
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.