On Friday, 24 August 2007 11:02, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > > No, I do not think I like that. I believe both -> control and -> crc > > > > is just useless paranoia. Bitflip in this area is not going to be any > > > > worse than bitflip anywhere else, we should not pretend this is > > > > somehow "more important". > > > > > > > > -> control should really be "protocol version"... probably should > > > > contain some field that is easy to increment. > > > > > > OK > > > > > > Perhaps I'll just remove the crc field. > > > > Like in the patch below. > > Yep, thanks. > > > --- > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> > > > > Since we already pass the address of restore_registers() in the image header, > > we can also pass the value of the CR3 register from before the hibernation in > > the same way. This will allow us to avoid using init_level4_pgt page tables > > during the restore. > > ACK. > > > @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ > > > > #include <linux/smp.h> > > #include <linux/suspend.h> > > +#include <linux/crc32.h> > > #include <asm/proto.h> > > #include <asm/page.h> > > #include <asm/pgtable.h> > > This one is no longer neccessary. I forgot about it. I've already sent the 1/4 and 2/4 patches to Andrew, so I'll keep the remaining two ones in the queue for a couple of days. Thanks for the ACKs! Greetings, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
