On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 3:06 AM, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 25 Feb 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Friday, February 25, 2011, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >> > On Thu, 24 Feb 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> > > > 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) >> > > >> > > This particular one should go in _after_ the functional patches. >> > > >> > > > 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? >> > > >> > > In fact, I think it's better if all patches go through the Xen tree. >> > > >> > >> > I don't mind taking them but if they have to go after your >> > suspend-2.6/linux-next tree this would introduce a new dependency in the >> > branch I am preparing for linux-next myself. >> > >> > Should I pull your suspend-2.6/linux-next tree into my linux-next branch? >> > Considering that this could create conflicts in linux-next if you >> > force-push your tree with some new changes and I don't update my version >> > of it, maybe it is better if I pull only a reduced version of it with >> > just the strict dependencies? >> >> It's not that simple, I think you'd need to pull my entire linux-next branch >> because of the dependencies between commits in there. >> >> Alternatively, I can take the entire $subject patchset. >> >> Still, I'd like the discussion to settle before anyway. > There has been no further discussion on this issue so far. Is there a consensus ? To summarize: XEN_SAVE_RESTORE depends on HIBERNATE, and in order to enable the save/restore functionality, the user has to enable HIBERNATE explicitly. In thread "xen: fix XEN_SAVE_RESTORE Kconfig dependencies", Jan raised an issue about "selecting" HIBERNATE & SWAP without the user's knowledge. That was resolved by making XEN_SAVE_RESTORE "depend" on HIBERNATE and making the user explicitly select it. Rafael suggested making an intermediate interface CONFIG_HIBERNATE_INTERFACE as an alternative but at the cost of a lot of code rework possibly. Either way, all patches in this series and the "xen: fix XEN_SAVE_RESTORE Kconfig dependencies" were acked but havent yet made it to either Stefano's or Rafael's tree. Would somebody please pull it into their tree? shriram > Ok then, when the discussion (and the code) is completely settled I'll > ask you if it is alright for me to pull your branch and have both in > linux-next. > > _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
