On Fri, 2011-02-25 at 16:17 +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Mon, 21 Feb 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > For a PV guest only the Xen PV drivers really matter. > > > > > > But for a PVHVM guest you are right since there are the emulated "PC" > > > devices though which could be problematic. There's nothing especially > > > thrilling in that set of devices although I don't think that invalidates > > > your point. > > This is a genuine concern because it currently breaks save/restore for > all PV on HVM guests (dummy_hcd being the offending driver). Only if !CONFIG_HIBERNATION, right? > > > > 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. > > > > > > I think selecting user-visible symbols is generally frowned upon. > > > > > > But apart from that I was concerned that tying the Xen functionality > > > into the hibernation option was a bit odd/artificial. Perhaps it's the > > > only solution though. > > > > I'd very much prefer it if the patchset didn't touch drivers/base/power/main.c. > > > > However, if you want to select CONFIG_HIBERNATION from CONFIG_XEN_SAVE_RESTORE, > > you should make sure that CONFIG_HIBERNATION is really selectable (ie. > > CONFIG_SWAP is set and CONFIG_ARCH_HIBERNATION_POSSIBLE is set). > > I think we should follow this suggestion. See the thread "[PATCH] xen: fix XEN_SAVE_RESTORE Kconfig dependencies" from Shriram <1298446066-11754-1-git-send-email-rshriram@xxxxxxxxx> Ian. _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
