lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Sep]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump
    On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:57:26 +1000 Nigel Cunningham <nigel@nigel.suspend2.net> wrote:

    > Hi.
    >
    > On Friday 21 September 2007 11:41:06 Andrew Morton wrote:
    > > > On Friday 21 September 2007 11:06:23 Andrew Morton wrote:
    > > > > On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:24:34 +1000 Nigel Cunningham
    > > > <nigel@nigel.suspend2.net> wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > > Hi Andrew.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > On Thursday 20 September 2007 20:09:41 Pavel Machek wrote:
    > > > > > > Seems like good enough for -mm to me.
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > Pavel
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Andrew, if I recall correctly, you said a while ago that you didn't
    > want
    > > > > > another hibernation implementation in the vanilla kernel. If you're
    > going
    > > > to
    > > > > > consider merging this kexec code, will you also please consider
    > merging
    > > > > > TuxOnIce?
    > > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > The theory is that kexec-based hibernation will mainly use preexisting
    > > > > kexec code and will permit us to delete the existing hibernation
    > > > > implementation.
    > > > >
    > > > > That's different from replacing it.
    > > >
    > > > TuxOnIce doesn't remove the existing implementation either. It can
    > > > transparently replace it, but you can enable/disable that at compile time.
    > >
    > > Right. So we end up with two implementations in-tree. Whereas
    > > kexec-based-hibernation leads us to having zero implementations in-tree.
    > >
    > > See, it's different.
    >
    > That's not true. Kexec will itself be an implementation, otherwise you'd end
    > up with people screaming about no hibernation support. And it won't result in
    > the complete removal of the existing hibernation code from the kernel. At the
    > very least, it's going to want the kernel being hibernated to have an
    > interface by which it can find out which pages need to be saved. I wouldn't
    > be surprised if it also ends up with an interface in which the kernel being
    > hibernated tells it what bdev/sectors in which to save the image as well
    > (otherwise you're going to need a dedicated, otherwise untouched partition
    > exclusively for the kexec'd kernel to use), or what network settings to use
    > if it wants to try to save the image to a network storage device. On top of
    > that, there are all the issues related to device reinitialisation and so on,
    > and it looks like there's greatly increased pain for users wanting to
    > configure this new implementation. Kexec is by no means proven to be the
    > panacea for all the issues.
    >

    Maybe, maybe not, dunno. That's why we haven't merged it yet. If it ends
    up being no good, we won't merge it!
    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-09-21 06:19    [W:0.029 / U:60.912 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site