On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 09:10:21PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, February 23, 2011, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > > > > 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? > > > > ok. > > > > > For my part the Xen side is: > > > Acked-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > The changes to drivers/xen/manage.c depend on some other cleanups made > > > on the Xen side (in linux-next soon if not already via Stefano's tree) > > > so how would you like to handle them? I could point you to a suitable to > > > apply the pm.h bits to or we could carry them in the Xen tree if you are > > > happy with them. > > > > Rafael maintains pm tree these days... Rafael? > > It doesn't matter a lot. The Xen people will need to wait for the previous > PM patches to be merged anyway, so I can take the PM bits, so long as I know > which patches are for me to take. I believe it only "[PATCH 3/3] PM: pm.h - Add comments about Xen save/restore/chkpt use case" (http://marc.info/?i=1298157158-5421-4-git-send-email-rshriram@xxxxxxxxx) I or Stefano (these patches are against Ian's tree which is againsts Stefano's tree) can take the other patches and stick Pavel's Ack, Rafeal's Ack, Ian's Ack on them and also my Signed-off for the Xen bits. I think that would work? _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
