On Mon 2007-12-17 01:27:29, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Saturday, 15 of December 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Linux never uses that register. The only user is suspend > > > > save/restore, but that' bogus because it wasn't ever initialized by > > > > Linux in the first place. It could be probably all safely removed. > > > > > > It probably is safe to remove... but we currently support '2.8.95 > > > kernel loads/resumes 2.6.24 image'... which would break if 2.8 uses > > > cr8. > > > > > > So please keep it if it is not a big problem. > > > > hm, so __save_processor_state() is in essence an ABI? Could you please > > also send a patch that documents this prominently, in the structure > > itself? > > Hmm, I'm not sure if it really is an ABI part. It doesn't communicate anything > outside of the kernel in which it is defined. Well, it is not "application binary interface", but it is "kernel-to-kernel binary interface"... > The problem is, though, that if kernel A is used for resuming kernel B, and > kernel B doesn't save/restore everything it will need after the resume, then > things will break if kernel A modifies that. So, yes, we'll need to document > that explicitly. Agreed. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
