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

Bill Davidsen
2003-10-11T14:07:09Z

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.