Hi. On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 01:33 +0200, Olivier Galibert wrote: > On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 11:50:45AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > .. but if the alternative is a feature that just isn't worth it, and > > likely to not only have its own bugs, but cause bugs elsewhere? (And yes, > > I believe STD is both of those. There's a reason it's called "STD". Go > > to google and type "STD" and press "I'm feeling lucky". Google is God). > > If it was correctly designed, it would be possible to change the > hardware or even the kernel through a STD cycle. And that would be > damn interesting on servers.
Those are different issues - hardware hot/cold plugging for the first. Changing the kernel through a cycle - that's not a design fault. The problem there is that the kernel and it's associated data structures are part of the state. Changing the kernel and keeping the image would require exactly correspondence in data structures, memory map and so on. That's why the same kernel is required. > In any case, if I could trust it, I'd use it when I need to move > servers around and I don't want to lose what is running. Riding power > cuts that way would be nice. That's what Rafael and I working on. Nigel
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
