From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [IPv6:2001:1868:205::9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E8731A003C for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 10:34:06 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <1409099608.21254.16.camel@smoke> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] kexec: minor fixups and enhancements From: Geoff Levand To: Vivek Goyal Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:33:28 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20140825165916.GC14379@redhat.com> References: <20140825165916.GC14379@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Eric Biederman , Andrew Morton , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi Vivek, On Mon, 2014-08-25 at 12:59 -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > Does arm64 has secureboot? If yes, then it might make sense to > enable the new syscall kexec_file_load() on arm64 instead of trying > to make old syscall work first. Yes, arm64 should support secureboot, but I have not looked into it. When do you expect syscall kexec_file_load to get merged? I won't wait until then to push my current kexec work. -Geoff