On Tue, 2008-03-11 at 23:18 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, 11 of March 2008, Vivek Goyal wrote: [...] > > Rafael/Pavel, does the approach of doing hibernation using a separate > > kernel holds promise? > > Well, what can I say? > > I haven't been a big fan of doing hibernation this way since the very beginning > and I still have the same reservations. Namely, my opinion is that the > hibernation-related problems we have are not just solvable this way. For one > example, in order to stop using the freezer for suspend/hibernation we first > need to revamp the suspending/resuming of devices (uder way) and the > kexec-based approach doesn't help us here. I wouldn't like to start another > discussion about it though. Yes. We need to work on device drivers for all hibernation implementations. And kexec-based hibernation provides a possible method to avoid freezer after driver works done. Best Regards, Huang Ying _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
