Re: [PATCH v3] add kexec_load() syscall [LWN.net]

From:		Andreas Jaeger <aj-AT-suse.com>
To:		Roland McGrath <roland-AT-hack.frob.com>
Subject:		Re: [PATCH v3] add kexec_load() syscall
Date:		Thu, 24 May 2012 06:00:46 +0200
Message-ID:		<4FBDB26E.8030107@suse.com>
Cc:		maximilian attems <max-AT-stro.at>, libc-alpha-AT-sourceware.org
Archive-link:		Article, Thread

On 05/23/2012 10:49 PM, Roland McGrath wrote:
>> So, what do others think? Should maximilian continue to clean up this
>> and get it integrated - or should we reject this because of the few users?
>
> We can collect other opinions, but I think we should defer the actual
> decision until after 2.16 (which for now is not materially distinguishable
> from deciding to reject it).  If the clean-up involves cleaning up the
> header situation as I suggested, that will take somewhat longer to resolve
> since it is a kernel dependency.

I missed in your review the comment on the header cleanup - and agree 
with it. So, let's wait for now on that before adding the header.

Btw. regarding adding the syscall, I see in linux/syscalls.list already 
similiar esoteric syscalls like create_module without any header 
support. I wouldn't object to do this for kexec_load as well,

Andreas
-- 
  Andreas Jaeger aj@{suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter/Identica: jaegerandi
   SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
    GF: Jeff Hawn,Jennifer Guild,Felix Imendörffer,HRB16746 (AG Nürnberg)
     GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F  FED1 389A 563C C272 A126

(Log in to post comments)