Eric,
I have carried forward the kexec patch set to 2.5.63. I have checked it
on a 1-way system, and 2-way tests are still pending.
There were additional syscall hijinks in the merge to 2.5.63, so anyone
that uses this patch set will need to recompile their kexec tools.
Minor changes to the base patch include the removal of two compile-time
warnings for unused variables.
The patches are available for download from OSDL's patch lifecycle
manageer (PLM):
Patch Stack for 2.5.63:
kexec base for 2.5.63 (based upon 2.5.54 version)
http://www.osdl.org/cgi-bin/plm?module=patch_info&patch_id=1623
kexec hwfixes for 2.5.63 (based upon 2.5.5[89] version)
http://www.osdl.org/cgi-bin/plm?module=patch_info&patch_id=1624
kexec usemm change (allowed 2-way to work for me):
http://www.osdl.org/cgi-bin/plm?module=patch_info&patch_id=1625
optional change to defconfig to CONFIG_KEXEC=y
http://www.osdl.org/cgi-bin/plm?module=patch_info&patch_id=1626
The patches are also available (with matching kexec-tools-1.8) here:
http://www.osdl.org/archive/andyp/kexec/2.5.63/
Andy
Andy Pfiffer <[email protected]> writes:
> Eric,
>
> I have carried forward the kexec patch set to 2.5.63. I have checked it
> on a 1-way system, and 2-way tests are still pending.
Cool.
> There were additional syscall hijinks in the merge to 2.5.63, so anyone
> that uses this patch set will need to recompile their kexec tools.
Along with all of the usual craziness of life my brother has been
staying with me the last month or so, and my amount of free
time to actual work on kexec has been less then I like.
We need to get up some steam and see what it will take for Linus
to notice and actually get this patch included.
Eric
>> There were additional syscall hijinks in the merge to 2.5.63, so anyone
>> that uses this patch set will need to recompile their kexec tools.
>
> Along with all of the usual craziness of life my brother has been
> staying with me the last month or so, and my amount of free
> time to actual work on kexec has been less then I like.
>
> We need to get up some steam and see what it will take for Linus
> to notice and actually get this patch included.
Could you confirm that the patches are released under the GPL, and have no
patent encumberances that you know of? That will enable me to integrate
them and get more people to work on it ...
Thanks,
M.
"Martin J. Bligh" <[email protected]> writes:
> >> There were additional syscall hijinks in the merge to 2.5.63, so anyone
> >> that uses this patch set will need to recompile their kexec tools.
> >
> > Along with all of the usual craziness of life my brother has been
> > staying with me the last month or so, and my amount of free
> > time to actual work on kexec has been less then I like.
> >
> > We need to get up some steam and see what it will take for Linus
> > to notice and actually get this patch included.
>
> Could you confirm that the patches are released under the GPL, and have no
> patent encumberances that you know of? That will enable me to integrate
> them and get more people to work on it ...
I though I had. But yes all of the code is released under GPL version 2
as specified by the kernel copying file.
Eric
>> Could you confirm that the patches are released under the GPL, and have
>> no patent encumberances that you know of? That will enable me to
>> integrate them and get more people to work on it ...
>
> I though I had. But yes all of the code is released under GPL version 2
> as specified by the kernel copying file.
Excellent - thanks for this ... I'll roll them in, and see how many
machines here we can get to work.
M.
On 27 Feb 2003, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> We need to get up some steam and see what it will take for Linus
> to notice and actually get this patch included.
I hate to say it, but "notice" and "include" are two different things. He
noticed the "write oops to disk" feature, he just didn't like it. Linus is
a great developer, but he has limited sys admin experience, if any.
Hopefully he will think it's cool, but don't assume that if you can get
his attention he will respond as you wish.
Best of luck on this.
--
bill davidsen <[email protected]>
CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.
Bill Davidsen <[email protected]> writes:
> On 27 Feb 2003, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
>
> > We need to get up some steam and see what it will take for Linus
> > to notice and actually get this patch included.
>
> I hate to say it, but "notice" and "include" are two different things. He
> noticed the "write oops to disk" feature, he just didn't like it. Linus is
> a great developer, but he has limited sys admin experience, if any.
> Hopefully he will think it's cool, but don't assume that if you can get
> his attention he will respond as you wish.
The code has already gotten tentative approval from Linus. And I suspect
the biggest reason it isn't in is that I have gotten distracted lately
and have not been asking for it to be included.
Being able to use this for processing panics is one of the side features
of kexec. Admittedly one of the more useful ones, but definitely not a core
feature.
Given the encouragement I have received until I actually get negative
feedback from Linus I will continue to figure it has not made it into
the kernel because Linus has limited hours in the day, and an overflowing
inbox.
Eric
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> The code has already gotten tentative approval from Linus. And I suspect
> the biggest reason it isn't in is that I have gotten distracted lately
> and have not been asking for it to be included.
After that tentative approval, kexec finally has gotten the attention
it deserves, and there was quite a bit of development on and
surrounding it, so I guess Linus may just have decided to wait until
the storm has calmed down a little.
Have you sent him a mail asking directly, maybe with a short status
update ?
- Werner
--
_________________________________________________________________________
/ Werner Almesberger, Buenos Aires, Argentina [email protected] /
/_http://www.almesberger.net/____________________________________________/