Hi,
> On Mon, 2012-10-01 at 12:36 +0100, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 08:49:16AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > >>> On 27.09.12 at 20:06, Daniel Kiper
<daniel.kiper@oracle.com> wrote:
> > > > Some kexec/kdump implementations (e.g. Xen PVOPS) on
different archs could
> > > > not use default functions or require some changes in
behavior of kexec/kdump
> > > > generic code. To cope with that problem kexec_ops struct was
introduced.
> > > > It allows a developer to replace all or some functions and
control some
> > > > functionality of kexec/kdump generic code.
> > >
> > > I''m not convinced that doing this at the architecture
independent
> > > layer is really necessary/desirable. Nevertheless, if
that''s the right
> > > place, then everything else looks good to me, except for a
> > > cosmetic thing:
> >
> > I do not like this patch, too. However, this is the simplest
> > solution. If you do not do that in that way then you must
> > duplicate most of kernel/kexec.c functionality in architecture
> > depndent files.
>
> It would have been a good idea to CC the maintainer of those files
> directly with at least this patch if not the whole series.
Thanks. I spotted later that maintainers are not in CC.
I am going to prepare next version of patches with
minor suggested fixes and repost them once again
for review next week.
> If they don''t like this approach then there not much point in
doing a
> thorough reviewing of the other 10 patches I don''t think, since I
would
> expect they will be required to change pretty substantially under those
> circumstances.
Sure.
Daniel