On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 02:25:40PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 09:14:17PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:38:02PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 04:56:24PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk wrote: > > > > Hey Andi, > > > > > > > > I'd like to push this page out the door, but I'm blocked doing so > > > > until I hear back from you regarding the question below (plus a new > > > > version of the page, if needed please). > > > > > > Probably. Eric should know. > > > > > > Frankly without an header the syscall is pretty much unusable > > > for normal programs anyways, so I gave up on this. > > > > I'm not sure that I ever understood the impasse over the header. > > It's basically: should kexec_load only be used from kexec(8) > or is it a generally available syscall. > > If the former is true no header or manpage is needed. > For the later both are. Magnus Damm is interested in having a kexec-tools module for busybox [1]. And I suspect that would be somewhat less tedious to implement if kexec was a generally available syscall. [1] http://tree.celinuxforum.org/pipermail/celinux-dev/2010-October/002057.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
