Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 11 Oct 2003 09:57:15 -0400 (EDT) | From | Bill Davidsen <> | Subject | Re: [Fastboot] kexec update (2.6.0-test7) |
| |
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> On 9 Oct 2003 21:27:35 GMT davidsen@tmr.com (bill davidsen) wrote: > > | In article <m1y8vufe5l.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>, > | Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote: > | | Cherry George Mathew <cherry@sdf.lonestar.org> writes: > | | > | | > On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Randy.Dunlap wrote: > | | > > | | > > You'll need to update the kexec-syscall.c file for the correct > | | > > kexec syscall number (274). > | | > > | | > Is there a consensus about what the syscall number will finally be ? We've > | | > jumped from 256 to 274 over the 2.5.x+ series kernels. Or is it the law > | | > the Jungle ? > | | > | | So far the law of the jungle. Regardless of the rest it looks like it > | | is time to submit a place keeping patch. > | > | Forgive me if the politics of this have changed, but will a place > | keeping patch be accepted for a feature which has not? > > Like the one recently added for "vserver" ?? > > #define __NR_vserver 273 > > and > > .long sys_ni_syscall /* sys_vserver */ > (ni == not implemented) > > But I don't think that it's quite time for a placeholder syscall number > (IMO of course). Eric can submit one though.
No, I wasn't clear. The question was if (a) Linus is still opposed to the implementation, and (b) if any new feature will make it into 2.6, given the "only fix bugs" edict recently.
-- bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |