Message-ID: <5789.1280971186@neuling.org>
Date:	Thu, 05 Aug 2010 11:19:46 +1000
From:	Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>
To:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
cc:	Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [rfc] Merge kexec-tools into the kernel tree

> >> > 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.
> >
> > I may have misrepresented how bad it is for power to Horms.  None of the
> > issues would be solved by a merge, but it would make life easier IMHO.
> >
> > In power we've added features to kexec which have required changes to
> > both the kernel and kexec-tools.  These have been backwards compatible,
> > so not to break to the ABI.  The problem here is getting users and
> > distros to take the correct versions of both sources if they want this
> > new feature.
> 
> I'm still scratching my head.  What new features were added recently
> that required this work?  The device tree or something else?

The couple that come to mind are:
 1) dynamic reconfigurable memory (added via the device tree):
    kexec-tools: cd8497a9a9e487684679b6747f7ba3f0a557328b
    kernel cf00085d8045cddd80a8aabad97de96fa8131793
 2) --reuseinitrd/retain_initrd option:
    kexec-tools: 8ec6347996ce83c369edeee4bed0498dedda6b41
    kernel: 0a7b35cb18c52d651f6ed9cd59edc979200ab880
Not recent though.

> What you are describing seems to be the case for adding any new kernel
> feature.

Yep, this is not unique to kexec.

> 
> > Similarly with bugs.  We recently went through a round of bug fixes for
> > new larger power7 machines.  We found bugs in both kexec-tools and the
> > kernel.  That meant we had to ensure users and distros were getting
> > correctly updated versions of both tools.
> >
> > Neither of these problems are show stoppers or power specific but I
> > think it would make life easier in these scenarios if the sources were
> > merged.  We could just tell users and distros to grab (say) 2.6.35
> > sources and we'd know they'd be right for both userspace and the kernel.
> 
> You are proposing optimizing for change when change should and generally
> is infrequent?

That's _part_ of the argument, yes.

> > Also, I think kexec-tools would benefit from the same release process as
> > the kernel, with a merge window followed by bug fixes.  Of course,
> > kexec-tools doesn't need to be in the kernel for this, but it might be
> > easier for Horms to enforce if it was.  kexec-tools only gets a trickle
> > patches.
> 
> You would like to see a higher barrier to entry for your patches to make
> it into /sbin/kexec?  Someone else to help you test so that you get fewer
> buggy patches into releases?

Yes and yes.

A kexec-tools merge could also benefit from gregkh's stable releases.

> > I'd also hope that kexec-tools would get some addition community
> > exposure and TLC if they were in the kernel sources.
> >
> > My question is, why not?  What qualifies a tool to be added to tools/?
> > I think kexec-tools are tied to the kernel at least as much as perf is.
> > Certainly the ABI for the image we are booting into is not Linux
> > specific, but should that disqualify it from being in tools/?
> 
> The grand and glorious vision for /sbin/kexec is that it can boot any
> interesting OS kernel.  From RHEL, SLES, Fedora, Unbuntu definitely,
> but also the BSDs, Mac OS X, and Windows.  I don't see how moving into
> the kernel tree making that vision any easier.  Do I need a different
> version of kexec to boot an Ubunutu kernel versus a RHEL kernel,
> versus a kernel.org kernel?

No I don't see a _need_ for this.

> On the flip side of it in general kexec should not be assumed to be
> the only boot loader using various kernel interfaces.  So when you add
> a new feature sure add the feature to /sbin/kexec but don't forget
> someone eventually will want that feature in another boot loader as
> well.

Yep.

> I can imagine arguments for putting the sources for /sbin/kexec into
> the kernel tree but I don't see them being made here.

Do you have any now?  :-)

> If we talk about analyzing and filtering crash dumps, I can totally
> see an argument for putting something under tools/ if the authors of
> mkdumpfile and crash are interested.  Those tools fundamentally really
> do follow kernel internals.

I agree that the argument is stronger for tools/ inclusion if internal
APIs need to be followed.  Of course perf doesn't need internals APIs
and it's in tools/.

> I may be dense but I don't how everything will be better if sprinkled
> with penguin pee.

It's more likely that I'm too dense to argue the case :-)

Mikey
--
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