From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1YGaDm-0002kX-SD for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 21:32:23 +0000 Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 16:31:25 -0500 From: Vivek Goyal Subject: Re: Edited kexec_load(2) [kexec_file_load()] man page for review Message-ID: <20150128213125.GH15342@redhat.com> References: <20141111213037.GA31445@redhat.com> <54ADA284.30502@gmail.com> <20150112221634.GD16162@redhat.com> <54B91271.3000600@gmail.com> <20150127142459.GA12851@redhat.com> <54C89816.8030709@gmail.com> <20150128144803.GC15342@redhat.com> <20150128203402.GG15342@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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" Errors-To: kexec-bounces+dwmw2=infradead.org@lists.infradead.org To: Scot Doyle Cc: "linux-man@vger.kernel.org" , Kexec Mailing List , lkml , Andy Lutomirski , Andi Kleen , Borislav Petkov , "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" , "H. Peter Anvin" , Dave Young , "Eric W. Biederman" On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 09:14:03PM +0000, Scot Doyle wrote: > On Wed, 28 Jan 2015, Vivek Goyal wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 04:49:34PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > > > Hello Vivek, > > > > > > >> I've made various adjustments to the page in the light of your comments > > > >> above. Thanks! > > > > > > > > Thank you for following it up and improving kexec man page. > > > > > > You're welcome. So, by now, I've made quite a lot of changes > > > (including adding a number of cases under ERRORS). I think the revised > > > kexec_load/kexec_file_load page is pretty much ready to go, but would > > > you be willing to give the text below a check over first? > > > > > > > Hi Michael, > > > > I had a quick look and it looks good to me. > > > > Thanks > > Vivek > > When I tested, kexec_file_load required CONFIG_RELOCATABLE. Is the same > true for kexec_load? Would it make sense to note this in the man pages > along with the need for CONFIG_KEXEC_FILE, etc? Or as an error message? Hmm.., I can't see an explicity dependency between RELOCATABLE and KEXEC. Both KEXEC and KEXEC_FILE should be able to load a kernel even if it had RELOCATABLE=n. Just that kernel will run from the address it has been built for. Thanks Vivek _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec