Re: [Fastboot] kexec update (2.6.0-test7)

[Bill Davidsen]

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Randy.Dunlap wrote:

> On 9 Oct 2003 21:27:35 GMT davidsen@xxxxxxx (bill davidsen) wrote:
> 
> | In article <m1y8vufe5l.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> | Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> | | Cherry George Mathew <cherry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> | | 
> | | > On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> | | > 
> | | > > You'll need to update the kexec-syscall.c file for the correct
> | | > > kexec syscall number (274).
> | | > 
> | | > Is there a consensus about what the syscall number will finally be ? We've
> | | > jumped from 256 to 274 over the 2.5.x+  series kernels. Or is it the law
> | | > the Jungle ?
> | | 
> | | So far the law of the jungle.  Regardless of the rest it looks like it
> | | is time to submit a place keeping patch.
> | 
> | Forgive me if the politics of this have changed, but will a place
> | keeping patch be accepted for a feature which has not? 
> 
> Like the one recently added for "vserver" ??
> 
> #define __NR_vserver            273
> 
> and
> 
> 	.long sys_ni_syscall	/* sys_vserver */
> (ni == not implemented)
> 
> But I don't think that it's quite time for a placeholder syscall number
> (IMO of course).  Eric can submit one though.

No, I wasn't clear. The question was if (a) Linus is still opposed to the
implementation, and (b) if any new feature will make it into 2.6, given
the "only fix bugs" edict recently.

-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
  CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.

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