On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 09:15:02AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Simon, > > Thanks for your comments! > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Simon Horman <horms at verge.net.au> wrote: > > Pasting two series in one was a bit confusing for me at first. > > Perhaps you could consider posting two separate series in future. > > Sorry, I wanted to have all information in one series for the first posting, to > avoid people having to look around too much if they want to give it a try. > > I'll post seperate series in the future. Thanks. > >> Patches: > >> - [PATCH 1/2] kexec: Let slurp_file_len() return the number of bytes > >> - [PATCH 2/2] kexec: Add preliminary m68k support > >> > >> Notes: > >> - Based on git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/utils/kernel/kexec/kexec-tools.git > > > > A good choice. > > Is it normal I don't see much activity there? Yes, that is normal. > > >> - The ramdisk is loaded at the top of memory minus 4096, unlike with > >> m68boot (ataboot/amiboot), as locate_hole() seems to have a bug that it > >> cannot reserve a block at the real top of memory. > > > > Is this a bug that could be fixed? > > Possibly. I suspect an off-by-one bug somewhere, but I haven't looked deeply > into it. My feeling is that if possible it would be better to fix the bug than add a work-around. > >> - Do we want to check the struct bootversion at the start of the kernel, > >> like m68kboot does? > >> Kexec may be used to load ELF files that are not Linux kernel images, > >> and thus don't have a Linux-specific struct bootversion. > > > > If the check can sanely be skipped for non Linux kernel images then > > this sounds like a reasonable idea to me. Otherwise I would lean towards > > omitting it. Either way, I don't feel strongly about this. > > > >> - Do we want to check the size of the kernel image + bootinfo, and warn the > >> user if it's larger than 4 MiB? > >> This is a limitation of the current Linux/m68k kernel only. > > > > I think that sounds like a good idea but I don't feel strongly about it. > > Currently I'm leaning towards just printing a warning for both > (missing/incompatible > bootversion and image-too-large). That sounds fine to me.
