Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 08:15:23 -0500 ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Eric W. Biederman) wrote: > >> > For 3), people can still use kexec_load and develop/fix for it, if no >> > kexec_file_load supported. But 32-bit arm should be a different one, >> > more like i386, we will leave it as is, and fix anything which could >> > break it. But people really expects to improve or add feature to it? E.g >> > in this patchset, the mem hotplug issue James raised, I assume James is >> > focusing on arm64, x86_64, but not 32-bit arm. As DavidH commented in >> > another reply, people even don't agree to continue supporting memory >> > hotplug on 32-bit system. We ever took effort to fix a memory hotplug >> > bug on i386 with a patch, but people would rather set it as BROKEN. >> >> For memory hotplug just reload. Userspace already gets good events. >> >> We should not expect anything except a panic kernel to be loaded over a >> memory hotplug event. The kexec on panic code should actually be loaded >> in a location that we don't reliquish if asked for it. > > Is that a nack for James's patchset? I have just read the end of the thread and I have the sense that the patchset had already been rejected. I will see if I can go back and read the beginning. I was mostly reacting to the idea that you could stop maintaining an interface that people are actively using because there is a newer interface. Eric _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
