On 3/16/07, Ian Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 11:40 +0900, Magnus Damm wrote: > > Right. And maybe it's a good idea to make sure that this feature is > > actually supported by kexec-tools before adding code to the kernel? > > I sent patches to the fastboot list at the same time I sent these ones > to support differences in the underlying hypervisor architecture in the > tools.
Oh, that's good news. I have not seen them yet... > They haven't appeared in the archives yet so I fear they have gone > astray. I'll resend when I get to the office in a bit. ... so please resend. We've just frozen the kexec-tools-testing tree for an upcoming release, but if you resend soon and your patches are trivial you may be able to talk us into merging your changes before the release.. > The tools already have support for introducing a SHIM when kexecing > between different architectures (at least in the 64->32 direction if I > understand kexec-tools-testing/purgatory/arch/i386/compat_x86_64.S and > k-t-t.../kexec/arch/i386/compat_x86_64.S correctly). This is really just > an extension of that. Right, the mode switching code in purgatory. > > My gut feeling about this is that you are begging for trouble. The > > kexec/kdump solution is fragile just by itself, and trying to go > > between architectures is just going to be painful. > > It works fine under Xen and I think going from 64Xen+32Kernel->32Kernel > makes more sense than going from 64Xen+32Kernel->64Kernel. As I said > originally I'm not so convinced it makes sense in the native case but I > see no reason to outlaw it (people get to keep both pieces etc...) For kexec I think it is just fine. But for kdump, are you sure things will work out ok? There are some differences between the i386 and x86_64 kexec-tools code and I wonder if feeding i386 info into an x86_64 kernel will work properly. Thanks! / magnus _______________________________________________ fastboot mailing list fastboot@lists.osdl.org https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/fastboot
