From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263325AbTJKQuZ (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Oct 2003 12:50:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263327AbTJKQuZ (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Oct 2003 12:50:25 -0400 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:36270 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263325AbTJKQuT (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Oct 2003 12:50:19 -0400 Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 09:49:10 -0700 From: "Randy.Dunlap" To: Bill Davidsen Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Fastboot] kexec update (2.6.0-test7) Message-Id: <20031011094910.1283d784.rddunlap@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20031009183346.3ae74277.rddunlap@osdl.org> Organization: OSDL X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.4 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 09:57:15 -0400 (EDT) Bill Davidsen 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 , | > | Eric W. Biederman wrote: | > | | Cherry George Mathew 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