Eric Sultan wrote:
> The project team agrees that quiesce and suspend/resume should be
> supported.
>
> Solaris 10 deliveries will include support for DDI_SUSPEND and DDI_RESUME.
>
> Post-Solaris 10 deliveries will also include support for quiesce(9e).
> In the initial deliveries, the quiesce vector in the dev_ops struct
> will be set to ddi_quiesce_not_supported if the target OS doesn't yet
> have any quiesce users. When the Fast Reboot team delivers code that
> uses quiesce, the ast driver will replace that vector with one to a
> device-specific quiesce entry point.
I'm happy with this response. Note that on x86, there are already
quiesce() users. So on x86 at least, quiesce should be supported on
Nevada from the initial point of integration.
(As an aside, I'm not sure there is any point in doing
DDI_SUSPEND/RESUME on Solaris 10. None of the SPARC platforms in
question can SUSPEND/RESUME -- or at least I don't think they can -- and
x86 SUSPEND/RESUME is only supported on Solaris Nevada/OpenSolaris. So
you might have a difficult time verifying suspend/resume on S10.)
-- Garrett
>
> -- Eric
>
>
>
>
> Sherry Moore wrote:
>> quiesce(9E) is a newly (since build 100) added dev_ops entry point
>> http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/819-2255/quiesce-9e?l=en&a=view
>>
>> The Fast Reboot team would like the SPARC AST project team to state
>> in the final case material
>>
>> 1. that quiesce(9E) will not be implemented at initial integration
>> and why.
>>
>> 2. their commitment to implement quiesce(9E) when SPARC Fast Reboot
>> project is in progress.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Sherry
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:28:56AM -0800, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>>
>>> At PSARC today, this was let run, because of the question of quiesce(9e)
>>> support. PSARC would like to see either the project team agree to
>>> implement quiesce(9e) or a written statement from the Fast Reboot team
>>> clarifying that quiesce() is not needed for this project.
>>>
>>> (Note that while I understand the project title indicates SPARC, earlier
>>> discussion has revealed that this project also shares code with x86. I
>>> personally believe the quiesce question is more germane to x86 at the
>>> moment, but I'm not sure if that is tantamount to granting a blanket waiver
>>> for SPARC drivers.)
>>>
>>> The same questions can also be made of DDI_SUSPEND and DDI_RESUME, though I
>>> perceive that there is less urgency here (given that this is intended for
>>> server products).
>>>
>>> As a final personal note, I expect that if the project team simply agrees
>>> to implement both suspend/resume and quiesce, that this case will be
>>> approved with no further objections.
>>>
>>> - -Garrett
>>>
>>
>>
>
