On Sunday 22 March 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Sunday 22 March 2009, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > > > Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > Well, why don't you implement the platform suspend operations for Xen? > > > > I guess you don't want ACPI _PTS to be executed during suspend as well. > > > > > > > > > > I don't know. What's _PTS? > > > > It's an ACPI method called to prepare the platform to enter the sleep state > > (the name stands for "prepare to sleep"). Executing it may affect the > > hardware. > > > > > I think for the most part we want Linux to do most of the acpi > > > work of bringing the machine into an idle state. Its just that > > > Xen is responsible for the very low level cpu context > > > save/restore, because the Linux kernel is still running on vcpus > > > rather than the physical cpus. > > > > I think you really should not execute any global ACPI methods to > > suspend a guest, because that may affect the host. That's why I > > think it's better to regard Xen as a platform and implement a > > separate set of suspend operations for it. > > I'd agree with that. That also allows the reuse of existing > callbacks, right? Yes, it does. 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
