[PATCH] nvram buffering/error logging port to 2.6

Hollis Blanchard hollisb at us.ibm.com
Sat Nov 8 06:10:25 EST 2003

On Friday, Nov 7, 2003, at 13:02 US/Central, Jake Moilanen wrote:
>> When I asked about this last week nobody could come up with a sensible
>> reason why rtas should not remain as /proc/rtas, for compatibility
>> with
>> ppc32.
> As Dave Engebretsen stated it was originally done to "be consistent
> with
> where the rest of the ppc64 /proc interfaces have been put".
> Many of the ppc64-utils are currently expecting these interfaces in
> /proc/ppc64/rtas.  It's would be nice not to break utilities when a
> customer or user moves up to 2.6.

I remember someone suggesting a symlink...

> I have not looked, but what are the utilities in ppc32 that use
> /proc/rtas?

You mean the ones we're writing won't work on ppc32 RS/6000? Only
slightly joking...

> I personally would rather stay compatible between releases then
> architectures.

Let's do both with a symlink. Architectures because it's "right", and
releases because we need to cover not-quite-right decisions in the
past. ;)

Hollis Blanchard
IBM Linux Technology Center

** Sent via the linuxppc64-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

More information about the Linuxppc64-dev mailing list