Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 15:40:12 +0900
From: Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>
To: kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        =?utf-8?Q?Am=C3=A9rico?= Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Neil Horman <nhorman@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [rfc] Merge kexec-tools into the kernel tree
Message-ID: <20100805064011.GB4630@verge.net.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20100804070647.GB24064@verge.net.au>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1241
Lines: 27

On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 04:06:48PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> 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.

Thanks to everyone for their responses. I think we can safely conclude
that the body of opinion is that its not appropriate for kexec-tools
to be included in the kernel tree. Primarily because it isn't tied
closely to the kernel ABI. As such I withdraw this proposal.

Thanks in particular to those who offered ideas on how to resolve
some of the problems that kexec-tools faces. Lets make those ideas happen.

--
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/