From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261841AbTJIEFI (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Oct 2003 00:05:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261871AbTJIEFI (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Oct 2003 00:05:08 -0400 Received: from ol.freeshell.org ([192.94.73.20]:6348 "EHLO sdf.lonestar.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261841AbTJIEFF (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Oct 2003 00:05:05 -0400 Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 04:04:59 +0000 (UTC) From: Cherry George Mathew To: "Randy.Dunlap" cc: lkml , fastboot@osdl.org Subject: Re: [Fastboot] kexec update (2.6.0-test7) In-Reply-To: <20031008172235.70d6b794.rddunlap@osdl.org> Message-ID: References: <20031008172235.70d6b794.rddunlap@osdl.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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