This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH v3] add kexec_load() syscall

From: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>
To: Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot com>
Cc: maximilian attems <max at stro dot at>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 13:49:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] add kexec_load() syscall
References: <1337770617-28401-1-git-send-email-max@stro.at><20120523163441.EDBAA2C0AC@topped-with-meat.com><4FBD49C6.70500@suse.com>

> 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.


Thanks,
Roland

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH v3] add kexec_load() syscall
  - From: maximilian attems
- Re: [PATCH v3] add kexec_load() syscall
  - From: Andreas Jaeger

References:
- [PATCH v3] add kexec_load() syscall
  - From: maximilian attems
- Re: [PATCH v3] add kexec_load() syscall
  - From: Roland McGrath
- Re: [PATCH v3] add kexec_load() syscall
  - From: Andreas Jaeger

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]