On 08/11/13 13:48, Daniel Kiper wrote: > On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 01:13:59PM +0000, David Vrabel wrote: >> Keir, >> >> Sorry, forgot to CC you on this series. >> >> Can we have your opinion on whether this kexec series can be merged? >> And if not, what further work and/or testing is required? >> >> On 07/11/13 21:16, Daniel Kiper wrote: >>> On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 02:49:37PM +0000, David Vrabel wrote: >>>> The series (for Xen 4.4) improves the kexec hypercall by making Xen >>>> responsible for loading and relocating the image. This allows kexec >>>> to be usable by pv-ops kernels and should allow kexec to be usable >>>> from a HVM or PVH privileged domain. >>>> >>>> I have now tested this with a Linux kernel image using the VGA console >>>> which was what was causing problems in v9 (this turned out to be a >>>> kexec-tools bug). >>>> >>>> The required patch series for kexec-tools will be posted shortly and >>>> are available from the xen-v7 branch of: >>> In general it works. However, quite often I am not able to execute panic >>> kernel. Machine hangs with following message: >> I cannot reproduce any failures, neither on my dev box nor on any of the >> automated XenServer tests that run on a range of different hardware >> platforms. I find kexec to be very reliable and an earlier version of >> this series has been in production within XenServer for a while now and >> has seen real use in the field. >> >> None of the issues reported so far have been regressions but failures in >> specific uses of the new support for pv-ops kernels. >> >> I really can't see how I can do anything else to make this series >> acceptable for merging. > I think that in general it is OK. However, we must solve discovered > issues or confirm that it is not a problem of current implementation. > That is all. I hope that we finally do that next week (FYI, Monday > is public holiday in Poland). What outstanding issues do you think are present then? ~Andrew
