kexec update (2.6.0-test7)

kexec update (2.6.0-test7)

[Randy.Dunlap]

Hi,

I've updated the kexec patch for 2.6.0-test7.
It can be found at
  http://developer.osdl.org/rddunlap/kexec/2.6.0-test7/kexec-260t7.patch

A slightly different version of it can also be found in the
-osdl patchset at
  http://developer.osdl.org/shemminger/patches/2.6/2.6.0-test7/

The userspace tools are at
  http://www.xmission.com/~ebiederm/files/kexec/
You'll need to update the kexec-syscall.c file for the correct
kexec syscall number (274).
I intend to try to automate this (somehow).

Feedback/patches welcome.

--
~Randy

Re: [Fastboot] kexec update (2.6.0-test7)

[Cherry George Mathew]

On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Randy.Dunlap wrote:

> You'll need to update the kexec-syscall.c file for the correct
> kexec syscall number (274).

Is there a consensus about what the syscall number will finally be ? We've
jumped from 256 to 274 over the 2.5.x+  series kernels. Or is it the law
the Jungle ?

--
cherry@sdf.lonestar.org
Homepage - http://cherry.freeshell.org

Re: [Fastboot] kexec update (2.6.0-test7)

[Eric W. Biederman]

Cherry George Mathew <cherry@sdf.lonestar.org> writes:

> On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> 
> > You'll need to update the kexec-syscall.c file for the correct
> > kexec syscall number (274).
> 
> Is there a consensus about what the syscall number will finally be ? We've
> jumped from 256 to 274 over the 2.5.x+  series kernels. Or is it the law
> the Jungle ?

So far the law of the jungle.  Regardless of the rest it looks like it
is time to submit a place keeping patch.

Eric

Re: [Fastboot] kexec update (2.6.0-test7)

[Bill Davidsen]

In article <m1y8vufe5l.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>,
Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:
>Cherry George Mathew <cherry@sdf.lonestar.org> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
>> 
>> > You'll need to update the kexec-syscall.c file for the correct
>> > kexec syscall number (274).
>> 
>> Is there a consensus about what the syscall number will finally be ? We've
>> jumped from 256 to 274 over the 2.5.x+  series kernels. Or is it the law
>> the Jungle ?
>
>So far the law of the jungle.  Regardless of the rest it looks like it
>is time to submit a place keeping patch.
>
>Eric
>-
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>

-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.

Re: [Fastboot] kexec update (2.6.0-test7)

[Steven Cole]

On Thu, 2003-10-09 at 12:40, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Cherry George Mathew <cherry@sdf.lonestar.org> writes:
> 
> > On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> > 
> > > You'll need to update the kexec-syscall.c file for the correct
> > > kexec syscall number (274).
> > 
> > Is there a consensus about what the syscall number will finally be ? We've
> > jumped from 256 to 274 over the 2.5.x+  series kernels. Or is it the law
> > the Jungle ?
> 
> So far the law of the jungle.  Regardless of the rest it looks like it
> is time to submit a place keeping patch.
> 
> Eric
> -

And if Linus takes that patch, Hans should do the same for __NR_reiser4
for the same reason.

Steven

Re: [Fastboot] kexec update (2.6.0-test7)

[bill davidsen]

In article <m1y8vufe5l.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>,
Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:
| Cherry George Mathew <cherry@sdf.lonestar.org> writes:
| 
| > On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
| > 
| > > You'll need to update the kexec-syscall.c file for the correct
| > > kexec syscall number (274).
| > 
| > Is there a consensus about what the syscall number will finally be ? We've
| > jumped from 256 to 274 over the 2.5.x+  series kernels. Or is it the law
| > the Jungle ?
| 
| So far the law of the jungle.  Regardless of the rest it looks like it
| is time to submit a place keeping patch.

Forgive me if the politics of this have changed, but will a place
keeping patch be accepted for a feature which has not? 
-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.

Re: [Fastboot] kexec update (2.6.0-test7)

[Randy.Dunlap]

On 9 Oct 2003 21:27:35 GMT davidsen@tmr.com (bill davidsen) wrote:

| In article <m1y8vufe5l.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>,
| Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:
| | Cherry George Mathew <cherry@sdf.lonestar.org> writes:
| | 
| | > On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
| | > 
| | > > You'll need to update the kexec-syscall.c file for the correct
| | > > kexec syscall number (274).
| | > 
| | > Is there a consensus about what the syscall number will finally be ? We've
| | > jumped from 256 to 274 over the 2.5.x+  series kernels. Or is it the law
| | > the Jungle ?
| | 
| | So far the law of the jungle.  Regardless of the rest it looks like it
| | is time to submit a place keeping patch.
| 
| Forgive me if the politics of this have changed, but will a place
| keeping patch be accepted for a feature which has not? 

Like the one recently added for "vserver" ??

#define __NR_vserver            273

and

	.long sys_ni_syscall	/* sys_vserver */
(ni == not implemented)

But I don't think that it's quite time for a placeholder syscall number
(IMO of course).  Eric can submit one though.

--
~Randy

Re: [Fastboot] kexec update (2.6.0-test7)

[Bill Davidsen]

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Randy.Dunlap wrote:

> On 9 Oct 2003 21:27:35 GMT davidsen@tmr.com (bill davidsen) wrote:
> 
> | In article <m1y8vufe5l.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>,
> | Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:
> | | Cherry George Mathew <cherry@sdf.lonestar.org> writes:
> | | 
> | | > On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> | | > 
> | | > > You'll need to update the kexec-syscall.c file for the correct
> | | > > kexec syscall number (274).
> | | > 
> | | > Is there a consensus about what the syscall number will finally be ? We've
> | | > jumped from 256 to 274 over the 2.5.x+  series kernels. Or is it the law
> | | > the Jungle ?
> | | 
> | | So far the law of the jungle.  Regardless of the rest it looks like it
> | | is time to submit a place keeping patch.
> | 
> | Forgive me if the politics of this have changed, but will a place
> | keeping patch be accepted for a feature which has not? 
> 
> Like the one recently added for "vserver" ??
> 
> #define __NR_vserver            273
> 
> and
> 
> 	.long sys_ni_syscall	/* sys_vserver */
> (ni == not implemented)
> 
> But I don't think that it's quite time for a placeholder syscall number
> (IMO of course).  Eric can submit one though.

No, I wasn't clear. The question was if (a) Linus is still opposed to the
implementation, and (b) if any new feature will make it into 2.6, given
the "only fix bugs" edict recently.

-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.

Re: [Fastboot] kexec update (2.6.0-test7)

[Randy.Dunlap]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 09:57:15 -0400 (EDT) Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> wrote:

| On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
| 
| > On 9 Oct 2003 21:27:35 GMT davidsen@tmr.com (bill davidsen) wrote:
| > 
| > | In article <m1y8vufe5l.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>,
| > | Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:
| > | | Cherry George Mathew <cherry@sdf.lonestar.org> writes:
| > | | 
| > | | > On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
| > | | > 
| > | | > > You'll need to update the kexec-syscall.c file for the correct
| > | | > > kexec syscall number (274).
| > | | > 
| > | | > Is there a consensus about what the syscall number will finally be ? We've
| > | | > jumped from 256 to 274 over the 2.5.x+  series kernels. Or is it the law
| > | | > the Jungle ?
| > | | 
| > | | So far the law of the jungle.  Regardless of the rest it looks like it
| > | | is time to submit a place keeping patch.
| > | 
| > | Forgive me if the politics of this have changed, but will a place
| > | keeping patch be accepted for a feature which has not? 
| > 
| > Like the one recently added for "vserver" ??
| > 
| > #define __NR_vserver            273
| > 
| > and
| > 
| > 	.long sys_ni_syscall	/* sys_vserver */
| > (ni == not implemented)
| > 
| > But I don't think that it's quite time for a placeholder syscall number
| > (IMO of course).  Eric can submit one though.
| 
| No, I wasn't clear. The question was if (a) Linus is still opposed to the
| implementation, and (b) if any new feature will make it into 2.6, given
| the "only fix bugs" edict recently.

I don't know the answer to (a).  I don't even recall what caused it
to be dropped from -mm a few months ago, but I should look that up,
or if anyone recalls, please refresh my memory.

Unless 2.6 is much different from past kernel versions, new features
can be added after 2.6.0-final is out, usually if they are well-contained,
like a new driver or filesystem.  I don't see this as a big hurdle.

--
~Randy