Hi Rafael, > On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 7:12 PM Heiko Carstens > <heiko.carstens@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > we are going to remove hibernate support on s390, since it is > > - broken since many years > > - there is no real use case which justifies keeping and maintaining > > the code > > > > See also https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/s390/linux.git/commit/?h=features&id=394216275c7d503d966317da9a01ad6626a6091d > > > > This in turn allows also to remove s390 specific hooks in generic > > power management code (see patch below). The patch below is currently > > also on the same features branch. > > I silently assume(d) that you don't mind to get rid of otherwise dead > > code, or do you have any objections? > > > > From 086b2d78375cffe58f5341359bebec0650793811 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2020 20:55:20 +0100 > > Subject: [PATCH] PM: remove s390 specific callbacks > > > > ARCH_SAVE_PAGE_KEYS has been introduced in order to be able to save > > and restore s390 specific storage keys into a hibernation image. > > With hibernation support removed from s390 there is no point in > > keeping the callbacks. > > > > Acked-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Acked-by: Peter Oberparleiter <oberpar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Vasily Gorbik <gor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Can I take this patch or would it be better to route it differently? The patch is already on the s390 features branch and is supposed to be part of the first pull request for the next merge window (actually the patch is already in linux-next). So I'd say the easiest thing would be to route it through the s390 tree.
