On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 11:40 +0900, Magnus Damm wrote: > Right. And maybe it's a good idea to make sure that this feature is > actually supported by kexec-tools before adding code to the kernel?
I sent patches to the fastboot list at the same time I sent these ones to support differences in the underlying hypervisor architecture in the tools. They haven't appeared in the archives yet so I fear they have gone astray. I'll resend when I get to the office in a bit. The tools already have support for introducing a SHIM when kexecing between different architectures (at least in the 64->32 direction if I understand kexec-tools-testing/purgatory/arch/i386/compat_x86_64.S and k-t-t.../kexec/arch/i386/compat_x86_64.S correctly). This is really just an extension of that. > My gut feeling about this is that you are begging for trouble. The > kexec/kdump solution is fragile just by itself, and trying to go > between architectures is just going to be painful. It works fine under Xen and I think going from 64Xen+32Kernel->32Kernel makes more sense than going from 64Xen+32Kernel->64Kernel. As I said originally I'm not so convinced it makes sense in the native case but I see no reason to outlaw it (people get to keep both pieces etc...) Ian. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
