On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:57:26 +1000 Nigel Cunningham <nigel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi. > > On Friday 21 September 2007 11:41:06 Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Friday 21 September 2007 11:06:23 Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:24:34 +1000 Nigel Cunningham > > > <nigel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Andrew. > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday 20 September 2007 20:09:41 Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > > Seems like good enough for -mm to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel > > > > > > > > > > Andrew, if I recall correctly, you said a while ago that you didn't > want > > > > > another hibernation implementation in the vanilla kernel. If you're > going > > > to > > > > > consider merging this kexec code, will you also please consider > merging > > > > > TuxOnIce? > > > > > > > > > > > > > The theory is that kexec-based hibernation will mainly use preexisting > > > > kexec code and will permit us to delete the existing hibernation > > > > implementation. > > > > > > > > That's different from replacing it. > > > > > > TuxOnIce doesn't remove the existing implementation either. It can > > > transparently replace it, but you can enable/disable that at compile time. > > > > Right. So we end up with two implementations in-tree. Whereas > > kexec-based-hibernation leads us to having zero implementations in-tree. > > > > See, it's different. > > That's not true. Kexec will itself be an implementation, otherwise you'd end > up with people screaming about no hibernation support. And it won't result in > the complete removal of the existing hibernation code from the kernel. At the > very least, it's going to want the kernel being hibernated to have an > interface by which it can find out which pages need to be saved. I wouldn't > be surprised if it also ends up with an interface in which the kernel being > hibernated tells it what bdev/sectors in which to save the image as well > (otherwise you're going to need a dedicated, otherwise untouched partition > exclusively for the kexec'd kernel to use), or what network settings to use > if it wants to try to save the image to a network storage device. On top of > that, there are all the issues related to device reinitialisation and so on, > and it looks like there's greatly increased pain for users wanting to > configure this new implementation. Kexec is by no means proven to be the > panacea for all the issues. > Maybe, maybe not, dunno. That's why we haven't merged it yet. If it ends up being no good, we won't merge it! _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
