On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 8:11 PM Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. OK
