On Thu, 19 Jul 2007, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi.
On Thursday 19 July 2007 11:04:20 Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 15:13:13 +0800
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The changelog between v1 and v2
1. The kexec jump implementation is put into the kexec/kdump
framework instead of software suspend framework. The device
and CPU state save/restore code of software suspend is called
when needed.
2. The same code path is used for both kexec a new kernel and jump
back to original kernel.
I like the idea but I think I'll let people chat about it a bit more
before looking at merging the patches, OK?
Please wait until you see a complete implementation that actually works. I'm
sitting here quietly, following (and now breaking) the "If you can't say
anything positive, don't say anything at all" line because I think that the
more into the implementation details people get, the uglier this is going to
show itself to be. I'm perfectly willing to be proven wrong, but haven't seen
anything so far that's even begun to convince me otherwise.
as someone who's eager to have this work, I have to agree with Nigel that
it's premature to talk about merging anything.
the only exception I could see is if there are other uses for this
functionality. but even then, let things settle out a little bit.
David Lang
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
