On Friday, 20 July 2007 18:15, Alan Stern wrote: > On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > or the userspace helper functions that setup the instructions for the > > hibernate warn you if you are telling it to mount a filesystem that it > > knows is ext3 and is in use by the system going to sleep. > > One can argue that the ext3 implementation is inadequate. We should be > able to give it a mount option requiring it to fail rather than play > back the journal and write to the disk. > > > > > What I've been trying to say from the very beginning is that the current > > > frameworks _support_ hibernation a la ACPI S4 (although that's not exactly > > > ACPI S4) and if we are going to introduce a new framework, then it should > > > be designed to _support_ ACPI S4 fully _from_ _the_ _start_. > > > > here is where there is some disagreement (although it may just be > > misunderstanding on the 'fully support' phrase) > > > > it sounds like you are saying that the ACPI support requires a lot of work > > (the phrase I've seen some people use is a requirement to 'fix all the > > drivers'). we aren't wanting to have this work prevent the non-ACPI > > hibernation from progressing. > > You have completely misunderstood. That phrase "fix all the drivers" > has nothing whatsoever to do with ACPI. It is a prerequisite for > removing the freezer.
Yes. > And unless I'm mistaken, removing the freezer was the main reason for > doing all this kexec-style work in the first place. Yes, that also is my impression. Greetings, Rafael -- "Premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Donald Knuth - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
