[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m17hk6de62.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 00:34:29 -0700
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
Cc: kexec@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>
Subject: Re: [rfc] Merge kexec-tools into the kernel tree
Simon Horman <horms@...ge.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@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists