On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 19:56:47 +0200 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tuesday, August 16, 2011, Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > > From: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > For s390 there is one additional byte associated with each page, > > the storage key. This byte contains the referenced and changed > > bits and needs to be included into the hibernation image. > > If the storage keys are not restored to their previous state all > > original pages would appear to be dirty. This can cause > > inconsistencies e.g. with read-only filesystems. > > > > Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> > > Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> > > Cc: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@xxxxxxx> > > Cc: linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Cc: linux-s390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Signed-off-by: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@xxxxxxxxxx> > > OK, I don't have any complaints. Do you want me to take this > patch or do you want to push it through the s390 tree? The patch affects the common power management code. At minimum I would like an acked-by to take it into the s390 tree. I would feel more comfortable if you'd take it via the power management tree though. -- blue skies, Martin. "Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin. _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
