From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751243AbWFZOSD (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jun 2006 10:18:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751234AbWFZOSD (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jun 2006 10:18:03 -0400 Received: from ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com ([166.70.28.69]:64956 "EHLO ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751237AbWFZOSA (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jun 2006 10:18:00 -0400 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: vgoyal@in.ibm.com Cc: Maneesh Soni , Andrew Morton , Neela.Kolli@engenio.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, mike.miller@hp.com, fastboot@lists.osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Fastboot] [RFC] [PATCH 2/2] kdump: cciss driver initialization issue fix References: <20060623210121.GA18384@in.ibm.com> <20060623210424.GB18384@in.ibm.com> <20060623235553.2892f21a.akpm@osdl.org> <20060624111954.GA7313@in.ibm.com> <20060624043046.4e4985be.akpm@osdl.org> <20060624120836.GB7313@in.ibm.com> <20060626021100.GA12824@in.ibm.com> <20060626133504.GA8985@in.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 08:17:27 -0600 In-Reply-To: <20060626133504.GA8985@in.ibm.com> (Vivek Goyal's message of "Mon, 26 Jun 2006 09:35:04 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Vivek Goyal writes: > On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 07:41:00AM +0530, Maneesh Soni wrote: > > Maneesh, Keeping this code under a config option becomes a problem when we > will have a relocatable kernel. At some point of time we got to have > relocatable kernel so that people don't have to build two kernels. In fact > this is becoming a pain area for distros. That's the reason I thought > of making it a command line parameter. Ok. Even if we do this with a command line, we need to have a clean concept. If the concept is ignore devices with a brittle init routine that is comprehensible and potentially useful for other reasons than crash dumps. If the concept is crashdump it is a poorly defined concept and all of Andrews objections apply. > I remember few months back, Eric had mentioned that he has got patches for > relocatable kernel ready for review for i386 and x86_64. Eric, do you have > any plans to post the patches for review? I have some code that I keep intending to get to. It has probably bit rotted since I wrote it, but it shouldn't be too bad to clean up. Unfortunately the whole crashdump thing is fairly low on my priority list. Although I suspect a relocatable kernel is actually easier than the more important task of moving IRQ initialization into init_IRQ. on x86 and x86_64. At least I have managed to remove 3 layers of indirection in the x86_64 irq handling code recently :) Eric