On Friday, 10 of October 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Surely not ACPI-compliant. > > > > > > what do you mean? > > > > The ACPI spec says quite specifically what should be done while > > entering hibernation and during resume from hibernation. We're not > > following that in the current code, but we can (gradually) update the > > code to become ACPI-compilant in that respect. However, if we go the > > checkpointing route, I don't think that will be possible any more. > > ah, i see. I did not mean to utilize any ACPI paths but simple powerdown > or reboot. > > If we checkpoint all apps to persistent disk areas (which the checkpoint > patches in this thread are about), then we can just reboot the kernel > and forget all its state. > > That capability can be used to build a really robust hibernation > implementation IMO: we could "hibernate/kexec" over between different > kernel versions transparently. (only a small delay will be noticed by > the user - if we do it smartly with in-kernel modesetting then not even > the screen contents will be changed over this.) That actually should be called a migration of VM IMO and would be a useful functionality. Sure. Hibernation, however, generally involves the restoration of the hardware and most importantly _platform_ state which IMO is impossible without the ACPI functionality, as well as wake-up, which may depend on ACPI too. Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
