On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 11:34, Randy.Dunlap wrote: > On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 11:22:45 +1100 Michael Ellerman wrote: > > Hi Jeff, > > > > I realise it's late, but it'd be really good if you could send this up > > for 2.6.16, we're hosed without it. > > I'm wondering if this means that for every virtual/hypervisor > situation, we have to modify any $interested_drivers. > Why wouldn't we come up with a cleaner solution (in the long term)? > > E.g., could the hypervisor know when one of it's virtual OSes > dies or reboots and release its resources then?
It does exactly that for a regular reboot, but when we kexec we _don't_ die or reboot, as far as the Hypervisor is concerned it's all systems go. It's something of a double-edged sword, we're totally in control which gives us lots of flexibility, and _fast_ reboot times, but we also have to do a bit of extra stuff (ie. this patch) to keep things sane. cheers -- Michael Ellerman IBM OzLabs wwweb: http://michael.ellerman.id.au phone: +61 2 6212 1183 (tie line 70 21183) We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children. - S.M.A.R.T Person
pgpn4pcElGuv6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
