Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 07:41:00AM +0530, Maneesh Soni wrote: > > Maneesh, Keeping this code under a config option becomes a problem when we > will have a relocatable kernel. At some point of time we got to have > relocatable kernel so that people don't have to build two kernels. In fact > this is becoming a pain area for distros. That's the reason I thought > of making it a command line parameter. Ok. Even if we do this with a command line, we need to have a clean concept. If the concept is ignore devices with a brittle init routine that is comprehensible and potentially useful for other reasons than crash dumps. If the concept is crashdump it is a poorly defined concept and all of Andrews objections apply. > I remember few months back, Eric had mentioned that he has got patches for > relocatable kernel ready for review for i386 and x86_64. Eric, do you have > any plans to post the patches for review? I have some code that I keep intending to get to. It has probably bit rotted since I wrote it, but it shouldn't be too bad to clean up. Unfortunately the whole crashdump thing is fairly low on my priority list. Although I suspect a relocatable kernel is actually easier than the more important task of moving IRQ initialization into init_IRQ. on x86 and x86_64. At least I have managed to remove 3 layers of indirection in the x86_64 irq handling code recently :) Eric - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
