From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org>,
kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [rfc] Merge kexec-tools into the kernel tree
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 00:34:29 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m17hk6de62.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100804070647.GB24064@verge.net.au> (Simon Horman's message of "Wed\, 4 Aug 2010 16\:06\:48 +0900")
Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> writes:
> Hi,
>
> After all the excitement of relocating kexec-tools from
> one location on kernel.org to another last week it was
> suggested to me by Michael Neuling that the merging
> kexec-tools into the kernel tree would be a good idea.
>
> Given that there have been a bunch of issues with kexec
> on power that this would resolve. and there is precedence
> for tools in the kernel tree, this sounds entirely reasonable to me.
> So with my kexec-tools maintainer hat on, I would like to start
> a conversation about this.
What are the issues with kexec on power? Did someone fail to maintain
ABI compatibility?
The interface isn't even supposed to be linux specific, so I can't
imagine what would motivate moving this into the kernel tree.
I'm afraid that someone has a good answer for why their lives would be
simpler if /sbin/kexec was in the kernel tree and I will be absolutely
horrified and about someones stupidity when I hear that answer.
Eric
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>
Cc: kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org>
Subject: Re: [rfc] Merge kexec-tools into the kernel tree
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 00:34:29 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m17hk6de62.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100804070647.GB24064@verge.net.au> (Simon Horman's message of "Wed\, 4 Aug 2010 16\:06\:48 +0900")
Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> writes:
> Hi,
>
> After all the excitement of relocating kexec-tools from
> one location on kernel.org to another last week it was
> suggested to me by Michael Neuling that the merging
> kexec-tools into the kernel tree would be a good idea.
>
> Given that there have been a bunch of issues with kexec
> on power that this would resolve. and there is precedence
> for tools in the kernel tree, this sounds entirely reasonable to me.
> So with my kexec-tools maintainer hat on, I would like to start
> a conversation about this.
What are the issues with kexec on power? Did someone fail to maintain
ABI compatibility?
The interface isn't even supposed to be linux specific, so I can't
imagine what would motivate moving this into the kernel tree.
I'm afraid that someone has a good answer for why their lives would be
simpler if /sbin/kexec was in the kernel tree and I will be absolutely
horrified and about someones stupidity when I hear that answer.
Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-08-04 7:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-08-04 7:06 [rfc] Merge kexec-tools into the kernel tree Simon Horman
2010-08-04 7:06 ` Simon Horman
2010-08-04 7:22 ` Américo Wang
2010-08-04 7:22 ` Américo Wang
2010-08-04 7:34 ` Eric W. Biederman [this message]
2010-08-04 7:34 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-08-04 15:05 ` Andi Kleen
2010-08-04 15:05 ` Andi Kleen
2010-08-04 23:11 ` Michael Neuling
2010-08-04 23:11 ` Michael Neuling
2010-08-05 0:04 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-08-05 0:04 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-08-05 1:19 ` Michael Neuling
2010-08-05 1:19 ` Michael Neuling
2010-08-05 3:26 ` Américo Wang
2010-08-05 3:26 ` Américo Wang
2010-08-05 3:22 ` Américo Wang
2010-08-05 3:22 ` Américo Wang
2010-08-04 8:08 ` Bernhard Walle
2010-08-04 8:08 ` Bernhard Walle
2010-08-04 12:26 ` Neil Horman
2010-08-04 12:26 ` Neil Horman
2010-08-05 6:40 ` Simon Horman
2010-08-05 6:40 ` Simon Horman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=m17hk6de62.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org \
--to=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=horms@verge.net.au \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mikey@neuling.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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.