On Mon, 21 Feb 2011, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Sun, 2011-02-20 at 07:49 +0000, Pavel Machek wrote: > > On Sat 2011-02-19 15:12:35, Shriram Rajagopalan wrote: > > > The current implementation of xen guest save/restore/checkpoint functionality > > > uses PM_SUSPEND and PM_RESUME events. This is not optimal when taking > > > checkpoints of a virtual machine (where the suspend hypercall returns > > > non-zero, requiring the devices and xenbus to just pickup from where they left > > > off instead of a complete teardown/reconnect to backend). > > > > > > The following set of patches modify this implementation to use Hibernate style > > > control flow (freeze/restore for save/restore and freeze/thaw for checkpoint, > > > which is merely a cancelled save akin to failed swsusp() ). > > > > > > These patches are against Ian Campbell's PVHVM tree at > > > git://xenbits.xen.org/people/ianc/linux-2.6.git for-stefano/pvhvm > > > > > > at commit 8a8d1bc753c4e2dda5f2890292d60c67d6ebb573 > > > kernel version: 2.6.38-rc4 > > > > Series looks ok to me... > > Thanks Pavel, may we take that as an Acked-by? > > For my part the Xen side is: > Acked-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> There's one part of this which could be troublesome. The new code generates FREEZE, THAW, and RESTORE events even in kernels where CONFIG_HIBERNATION isn't set. In such kernels, drivers are not obliged to handle these events correctly. Shouldn't the CONFIG_XEN_SAVE_RESTORE option select CONFIG_HIBERNATION? In which case the #ifdef lines in pm_op() wouldn't need to be changed. Alan Stern _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
