Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 5 Jun 2007 00:51:43 +0200 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: A kexec approach to hibernation |
| |
Hi!
> > > To me, it seems a lot easier to get right than the current approaches. > > > > Well, you are certainly welcome to create the patch. "suspend3" name > > is still free, AFAICT. > > I could be sneaky and call it "hibernate". Probably nicer though to use the > name "kexec hibernate" to be later simplified to just "hibernate". > > I was hoping that everyone would like the idea so much that they would rush to > implement it, so that I wouldn't have to try. (I haven't written
That apparently did not happen, that much should be clear by now.
> > If _I_ were willing to add some runtime overhead to make hibernation > > simpler, I'd just use some virtualization to do that... with added > > advantage of "hibernate here, resume on different hw". > > I don't believe there is going to be any runtime overhead.
64MB less memory seems like runtime overhead for me. If you know how to do kexec without pre-reserving memory, I believe kexec/kdump team will be interested.
> To some extent, (see some of the explanations I gave in the other e-mail I > sent a few minutes ago in reply to Nigel) I think the kexec appraoch can be > viewed as a cleaner variant of userspace hibernate.
It also can be viewed as vaporware.
Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |