On Thu, 19 Jul 2007, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > Hi. > > On Thursday 19 July 2007 11:04:20 Andrew Morton wrote: >> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 15:13:13 +0800 >> "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang at intel.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> The changelog between v1 and v2 >>> >>> 1. The kexec jump implementation is put into the kexec/kdump >>> framework instead of software suspend framework. The device >>> and CPU state save/restore code of software suspend is called >>> when needed. >>> >>> 2. The same code path is used for both kexec a new kernel and jump >>> back to original kernel. >> >> I like the idea but I think I'll let people chat about it a bit more >> before looking at merging the patches, OK? > > Please wait until you see a complete implementation that actually works. I'm > sitting here quietly, following (and now breaking) the "If you can't say > anything positive, don't say anything at all" line because I think that the > more into the implementation details people get, the uglier this is going to > show itself to be. I'm perfectly willing to be proven wrong, but haven't seen > anything so far that's even begun to convince me otherwise. as someone who's eager to have this work, I have to agree with Nigel that it's premature to talk about merging anything. the only exception I could see is if there are other uses for this functionality. but even then, let things settle out a little bit. David Lang
