From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Simon Horman Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] kexec support for Linux/m68k (tools part) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 09:51:11 +0900 Message-ID: <20131213005111.GI32101@verge.net.au> References: <1381859460-13645-1-git-send-email-geert@linux-m68k.org> <20131016072236.GB29696@verge.net.au> <20131105070513.GB16448@verge.net.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-m68k-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: linux-m68k , kexec@lists.infradead.org On Sun, Dec 01, 2013 at 12:40:27PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Simon, > > On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Simon Horman wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 03:08:50PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Simon Horman wrote: > >> > I've taken a quick look over this and it seems reasonable to me. > >> > >> Thanks! > >> > >> > However, I wonder if I should wait for review of the kernel-side > >> > to be completed before applying the kexec-tools patches. > >> > > >> > Let me know what you think. > >> > >> The kexec-tools part seems to be stable. The issues to be sorted out are on > >> the kernel side. > > > > As the kexec-tools portion of this change isn't useful without the > > kernel portion I think I would like to wait before applying this series. > > Please repost once the kernel changes have been merged or if you > > would like them re-considered for any other reason. > > The kernel part is working now. > > I didn't make any changes to kexec-tools for v3. > Do you want me to resend them anyway, or can you just take v2? Sorry for being slow, I will take v2.