Curiousity question. Why should IBM be able to say what will or will not get into the zLinux kernel (and this is not even the kernel, but only zipl)? I am grateful to IBM for the fine work that they have done to make zLinux available. But I don't think that they should have any sort of "veto" power over whether a function goes into Linux or not, so long as it does not violate any IP patents or suchlike. To me, "undocumented" means "use at your own risk" not "use this and our lawyers will be all over you like a Pit Bull". Now, having said that, I personally would not use an undocumented hardware feature for the "stock kernel" simply because it is possible (but not likely) that IBM might change the instruction or remove it entirely.
-- John McKown Senior Technical Specialist UICI Insurance Center Applications & Solutions Team +1.817.255.3225 > -----Original Message----- > From: Lucius, Leland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 10:08 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Patch available to add LOADPARM support to ZIPL > > > My guess? I haven't a clue, but I'd venture to say...never. It uses > undocumented (SERVC) facilities and I don't know if IBM > "legal" would look > kindly on that. > > Leland
