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

["Randy.Dunlap" <rddunlap@osdl.org>]

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