Hi, Nigel > -----Original Message----- > From: Nigel Cunningham [mailto:ni...@nigelcunningham.com.au] > Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 8:35 PM > To: Chen, Yu C; r...@rjwysocki.net; pa...@ucw.cz; t...@linutronix.de; > mi...@redhat.com; h...@zytor.com > Cc: Zhang, Rui; l...@kernel.org; x...@kernel.org; linux...@vger.kernel.org; > linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH] [v2] x86, suspend: Save/restore extra MSR registers for > suspend > > Hi Chen. > > Is there any issue with saving and restoring MSRs unconditionally? That > would simplify the patch and make things 'just work'. Saving/restoring unconditionally might take BIOS legal action into account, for example, BIOS itself is willing to modify the MSR. And Pavel suggests using quirk to workaround in V1 patch: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/7023891/
So I'm considering a common framework to save/restore these MSRs, because user might need to protect more than one MSR during suspend, so.. I can modify this patch to a simpler version, for example, Introducing two variables in struct saved_context , like MSR_IA32_MISC_ENABLE does. Thanks for your review Best Regards, Yu > > Regards, > > Nigel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
