"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw at sisk.pl> writes: >> I'm not kexec hacker... but maybe this is in good enough state to be >> merged? It is useful on its own: kexec jump and back means we can dump >> system then continue running, for example... > > As far as I'm concerned, patches [1/4] and [2/4] can go. > > The other two are not in that shape yet (especially the [3/4] patch). Ok. Then I will see if I can review these in the next couple days and give some feedback. At a quick skim through the code it appears there is some more infrastructure then we need and things can still be simplified. Since this applies in particular to the user space interface I'm not comfortable with these patches going in just yet. The unused KEXEC_PRESERVE_ flags especially give me pause. Having something like that, that isn't currently wired up sounds like a bad place to start. Eric
