To: Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>
Cc: kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org>
Subject: Re: [rfc] Merge kexec-tools into the kernel tree
References: <20100804070647.GB24064@verge.net.au>
From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 00:34:29 -0700
In-Reply-To: <20100804070647.GB24064@verge.net.au> (Simon Horman's message of "Wed\, 4 Aug 2010 16\:06\:48 +0900")
Message-ID: <m17hk6de62.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1242
Lines: 31

Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> writes:

> Hi,
>
> After all the excitement of relocating kexec-tools from
> one location on kernel.org to another last week it was
> suggested to me by Michael Neuling that the merging
> kexec-tools into the kernel tree would be a good idea.
>
> Given that there have been a bunch of issues with kexec
> on power that this would resolve. and there is precedence
> for tools in the kernel tree, this sounds entirely reasonable to me.
> So with my kexec-tools maintainer hat on, I would like to start
> a conversation about this.

What are the issues with kexec on power?  Did someone fail to maintain
ABI compatibility?

The interface isn't even supposed to be linux specific, so I can't
imagine what would motivate moving this into the kernel tree.

I'm afraid that someone has a good answer for why their lives would be
simpler if /sbin/kexec was in the kernel tree and I will be absolutely
horrified and about someones stupidity when I hear that answer.

Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/