From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from ns.suse.de ([195.135.220.2] helo=mx1.suse.de) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.63 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1HmdEx-000359-NW for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 11 May 2007 18:05:33 -0400 Received: from Relay2.suse.de (mail2.suse.de [195.135.221.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E21512240 for ; Sat, 12 May 2007 00:05:18 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 00:05:15 +0200 From: Bernhard Walle Subject: Re: Does kexec on IA64 work? Message-ID: <20070511220514.GA1625@suse.de> References: <1178917927.10349.210.camel@ustr-shaha1-linux2.na.uis.unisys.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1178917927.10349.210.camel@ustr-shaha1-linux2.na.uis.unisys.com> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: kexec-bounces@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: kexec-bounces+dwmw2=infradead.org+dwmw2=infradead.org@lists.infradead.org To: kexec@lists.infradead.org * Amul Shah [2007-05-11 23:12]: > I am using a redhat derived 2.6.18 linux kernel and I am experiencing a > panic when the second kernel boots. I can't find the exact set of > emails that I want to tell me that kexec on IA64 isn't ready yet. Well, it basically works ... > Horms said this a month ago: > https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/fastboot/2007-March/013286.html > My recommendation is that 2.6.21rc3 is a farily good release for > kexec, > and if you aren't worried about ia64 then 2.6.20 is probably > good too. > If you really need something against 2.6.9, then I guess you > will have > to try to pull the patches out of git, but that is going to be > really hard work given that 2.6.9 is quite old now. > > For the curious, the panic log is below. I did a cursory inspection of > the kernel sources and found that the function start_secondary is called > from head.S. I don't know much about IA64 arch and assembly, so I > thought I would ask first if the IA64 implementation works. Did you try the 'maxpus=1' option for the panic kernel? Thanks, Bernhard _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec