![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
--- Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br> wrote: > On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, Anomalous Force wrote: > > --- Werner Almesberger <wa@almesberger.net> wrote: > > > because it would be completely unmaintainable (1,2). (I expect > to > > > > this is not true. if the system were an integral part of the > overall > > design, then programming would include it apriori. > > This has been said before, but "for some reason" everybody > who said it went quiet the moment they started working on > a patch and have never been heard from again. > > Either they're still working on the problem (after a four > years) or they've moved on to an easier/realistic project. i have stated this would be extremely difficult. no single person could attempt this without the support of the other developers as the effort must include all aspects of the kernel to some extent. the original discussion for this was to show that kexec() _could_ become something that is a holy grail amoung kernel developers: hot-swap. if all of the kernel developers think this can not be done, then it is not worth discussion any further. for a single person to make this happen, it would require that a single kernel version become frozen, and all aspects of it altered to support the operations of hot swapping. in such a senario, the development of the mainstream kernel would have progressed to the point that any attempting to apply a patch would prove futile as the code base for the patch has become obsolete. it is for this reason that i say it would take the awareness of all the developers moving forward. > > regards, > > Rik > -- > Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH". > http://www.surriel.com/ http://guru.conectiva.com/ > Current spamtrap: <a href=mailto:"october@surriel.com">october@surriel.com</a> ===== Main Entry: anom | |||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 11:31 [W:0.620 / U:1.070 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | ||||||||||