Re: [Fastboot] Re: [announce] kexec for linux 2.6.6

[Eric W. Biederman]

Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 04:16:03PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > But if we need additional infrastructure to "add new syscalls via VDSO" then
> > this should be in the base kernel, even if it's empty, yes?
> 
> Linus has vetoed dynamic syscall registration a few times.  And I agree
> with him, dynamic syscalls are the best way to get completely crappy
> interfaces.

The only thing I was thinking of doing was to export the symbol
__kernel__NR_kexec_load.  With a little care we could probably export
the system call numbers just as easily from /proc/kallsyms.

At this point that idea seems to add no real benefit.  Except for
allowing for a user space that can more easily track syscall renumber in
the kernel, which seems to be the wrong problem to solve.

So if kexec could actually get a reserved system call number that
would be the best solution I have seen in this thread.

Andrew how close are we to a point where we can look at kexec inclusion?

Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/