Vivek Goyal <[email protected]> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 07:41:00AM +0530, Maneesh Soni wrote:
>
> Maneesh, Keeping this code under a config option becomes a problem when we
> will have a relocatable kernel. At some point of time we got to have
> relocatable kernel so that people don't have to build two kernels. In fact
> this is becoming a pain area for distros. That's the reason I thought
> of making it a command line parameter.
Ok. Even if we do this with a command line, we need to have a clean concept.
If the concept is ignore devices with a brittle init routine that is comprehensible
and potentially useful for other reasons than crash dumps.
If the concept is crashdump it is a poorly defined concept and all of Andrews
objections apply.
> I remember few months back, Eric had mentioned that he has got patches for
> relocatable kernel ready for review for i386 and x86_64. Eric, do you have
> any plans to post the patches for review?
I have some code that I keep intending to get to. It has probably bit rotted
since I wrote it, but it shouldn't be too bad to clean up.
Unfortunately the whole crashdump thing is fairly low on my priority list.
Although I suspect a relocatable kernel is actually easier than the more
important task of moving IRQ initialization into init_IRQ. on x86 and x86_64.
At least I have managed to remove 3 layers of indirection in the x86_64 irq
handling code recently :)
Eric
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
