Re: [External] Re: [RFC 0/5] parker: PARtitioned KERnel

[Dave Hansen]

On 9/24/25 09:21, Fam Zheng wrote:
...
> The model and motivation here is not to split the domain and give
> different shares to different sysadmins, it's intended for one kernel
> to partition itself. I agree we shouldn't have different kernels here:
> one old, one new, one Linux, one Windows... All partitions should run
> a verified parker-aware kernel. Actually, it may be a good idea to
> force the same buildid in kexec between the boot kernel and secondary
> ones.
Uhhh.... From the cover letter:

> Another possible use case is for different kernel instances to have
> different performance tunings, CONFIG_ options, FDO/PGO according to
> the workload.

Wouldn't the buildid change with CONIFG_ options and FDO/PGO?

Thank you for posting this series. It's interesting and a thought
provoking. But, that's where it stops for me. I don't think this
approach has any future upstream. I probably won't look at it again,
even if it hits my inbox. (I hope it _isn't_ sent again unless there is
some *MAJOR* *MAJOR* change to the approach).