On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 03:36:57PM +0900, Magnus Damm wrote: > On 12/22/06, Jay Lan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Magnus Damm wrote: > >> On 12/19/06, Jay Lan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I'd like to spend time on fixing up ia64 support properly, but it has > >> been sort of a moving target because of heavy development. So to be > > > >That was what i thought. Is the old kexec tree no longer maintained? > > I would not call the old tree maintained. Other people may have > different opinions though. > > Simon (Horms) and I felt that it was painful to keep track of all > patches floating around for the old tree - they were never picked up - > so to solve this problem Simon created the kexec-tools-testing tree > and he has been picking up patches ever since. > > >I assume you have included all ia64 patches from Nan-hai? There is > >certainly work needed to be done to make ia64 support solid in > >kexec-tools-testing. > > I know that Simon has been trying hard to locate all patches and > include them in the tree, but he may have missed a few. It is also > possible that some patches are in a deadlock state because of review > and different opinions on how things should be implemented. But the > most likely problem IMO is that the kernel code and the kexec-tools > code are out of sync because of all recent development. > > Good thing is that all these things are solvable - it's just a matter > of spending time. And now when kexec for ia64 is included in > 2.6.20-rc1 we should have some "firm ground" to work with which is > nice.
I have been using kexec-tools-testing on ia64 on the Tiger2 platofm. And I have been doing that with 2.6.20-rc1 and beyond. So I am pretty sure that there can't be much missing. I do however suspect that there are some problems in the kexec-tools-testing code that Altix tickles. -- Horms H: http://www.vergenet.net/~horms/ W: http://www.valinux.co.jp/en/ _______________________________________________ fastboot mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/fastboot
