On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 13:15 +0000, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > >> > Does this make sense? > > >> > > >> Yes, this is a sensible optimization. But I think it may be better to > > >> make bootloader load kernel D directly into a specified memory location. > > >> For example, we can add a option to "kernel" command of grub. > > >> > > >> And, I think we can do more in bootloader. Such as we can prepare > > >> two > > > > > > Yes, that would be nice. > > > > > > It will mean quite a bit of work, but I guess it should be the long > > > term goal. Loading restore kernel directly from bootloader means: > > > > > > 1) it is fast -- no need to boot another kernel > > > > > > 2) it is "classical" way of doing things > > > > > > On the other hand, we loose flexibility that way: > > > > > > 1) it locks you onto one bootloader > > > > > > 2) you no longer have userland there to do uncompression, decryption, > > > etc.. > > > > True although for the uncompression and decryption those aren't exactly foreign > > requirements for bootloaders. > > Well, uncompression yes, but crypto? What is that, some kind of > trusted computing thingie? > > We do RSA for uswsusp, that may be a bit of problem for a bootloader, > but I'm glad bootloaders are bloated already :-). As far as I know, the grub 2.0 uses a modular implementation scheme. That is, every OS loader (Multi-boot, Linux, FreeBSD etc), partition table, file system is implemented as a module, and these modules can be statically linked into the final image. So I think the hibernation image loading can be implemented in grub 2.0 in a manageable way. :) Best Regards, Huang Ying _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
