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

Randy.Dunlap
2003-10-11T16:50:25Z

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