On Thursday, 11 October 2007 22:54, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > That's certainly possible. We already pass a very small amount of data
> > > between
> > > the boot and resuming kernels at the moment, and it's done quite simply -
> > > by
> > > putting the variables we want to 'transfer'
Hi!
> > That's certainly possible. We already pass a very small amount of data
> > between
> > the boot and resuming kernels at the moment, and it's done quite simply -
> > by
> > putting the variables we want to 'transfer' in a nosave page/section.
>
> Well, if the boot and image kernels
Hi!
That's certainly possible. We already pass a very small amount of data
between
the boot and resuming kernels at the moment, and it's done quite simply -
by
putting the variables we want to 'transfer' in a nosave page/section.
Well, if the boot and image kernels are different,
On Thursday, 11 October 2007 22:54, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
That's certainly possible. We already pass a very small amount of data
between
the boot and resuming kernels at the moment, and it's done quite simply -
by
putting the variables we want to 'transfer' in a nosave
Hi.
On Thursday 27 September 2007 16:33:54 Huang, Ying wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 16:30 -0400, Joseph Fannin wrote:
> > But, in my ignorance, I'm not sure even fixing the ext3 bug will
> > guarantee you consistent metadata so that you can handle a
> > swap/hibernate file. You can do a
On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 16:30 -0400, Joseph Fannin wrote:
> But, in my ignorance, I'm not sure even fixing the ext3 bug will
> guarantee you consistent metadata so that you can handle a
> swap/hibernate file. You can do a sync(), but how do you make that
> not race against running processes
On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 16:30 -0400, Joseph Fannin wrote:
But, in my ignorance, I'm not sure even fixing the ext3 bug will
guarantee you consistent metadata so that you can handle a
swap/hibernate file. You can do a sync(), but how do you make that
not race against running processes without
Hi.
On Thursday 27 September 2007 16:33:54 Huang, Ying wrote:
On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 16:30 -0400, Joseph Fannin wrote:
But, in my ignorance, I'm not sure even fixing the ext3 bug will
guarantee you consistent metadata so that you can handle a
swap/hibernate file. You can do a sync(),
Hi.
On Thursday 27 September 2007 06:30:36 Joseph Fannin wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 11:45:12AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> > > >
> > > > Sounds doable, as long as you can cope with long command lines (which
> > > > shouldn't be a biggie). (If you've got a swapfile or parts of a
FWIW, on all the hardware I have, Windows is able to deal with:
(1) hibernate Windows
(2) run $(OTHER_OS)
(3) resume Windows
... which seems to me to say that Linux is doing it wrong if it can't
handle other ACPI users between hibernate and resume. But maybe
that's just my
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 11:45:12AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> > >
> > > Sounds doable, as long as you can cope with long command lines (which
> > > shouldn't be a biggie). (If you've got a swapfile or parts of a swap
> > > partition already in use, it can be quite fragmented).
> >
> > Hmm.
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 11:45:12AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
Sounds doable, as long as you can cope with long command lines (which
shouldn't be a biggie). (If you've got a swapfile or parts of a swap
partition already in use, it can be quite fragmented).
Hmm. This is an
FWIW, on all the hardware I have, Windows is able to deal with:
(1) hibernate Windows
(2) run $(OTHER_OS)
(3) resume Windows
... which seems to me to say that Linux is doing it wrong if it can't
handle other ACPI users between hibernate and resume. But maybe
that's just my
Hi.
On Thursday 27 September 2007 06:30:36 Joseph Fannin wrote:
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 11:45:12AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
Sounds doable, as long as you can cope with long command lines (which
shouldn't be a biggie). (If you've got a swapfile or parts of a swap
partition
Andrew Morton schrieb:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:24:34 +1000 Nigel Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> Hi Andrew.
>>
>> On Thursday 20 September 2007 20:09:41 Pavel Machek wrote:
>>
>>> Seems like good enough for -mm to me.
>>>
>>>
Andrew Morton schrieb:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:24:34 +1000 Nigel Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Andrew.
On Thursday 20 September 2007 20:09:41 Pavel Machek wrote:
Seems like good enough for -mm to me.
On 9/21/07, Huang, Ying <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is fairly simple in fact. For example, you can specify the
> bdev/sectors in kernel command line when do kexec load "kexec -l <...>
> --append='...'", then the image writing system can get it through
> "cat /proc/cmdline".
I hope you take
On Saturday, 22 September 2007 20:00, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> On Sep 22, 2007, at 06:34:17, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Saturday, 22 September 2007 01:19, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> >> On Sep 21, 2007, at 17:16:59, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
> >>> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
On Sep 22, 2007, at 06:34:17, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, 22 September 2007 01:19, Kyle Moffett wrote:
On Sep 21, 2007, at 17:16:59, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The ACPI platform firmware is allowed to preserve information
accross
On Saturday, 22 September 2007 01:47, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Saturday 22 September 2007 09:19:18 Kyle Moffett wrote:
> > I think that in order for this to work, there would need to be some
> > ABI whereby the resume-ing kernel can pass its entire ACPI state and
> > a bunch of
On Saturday, 22 September 2007 01:19, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> On Sep 21, 2007, at 17:16:59, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
> > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> The ACPI platform firmware is allowed to preserve information
> >> accross the hibernation-resume cycle, so this need
On Saturday, 22 September 2007 01:19, Kyle Moffett wrote:
On Sep 21, 2007, at 17:16:59, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The ACPI platform firmware is allowed to preserve information
accross the hibernation-resume cycle, so this need not be the
On Saturday, 22 September 2007 01:47, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi.
On Saturday 22 September 2007 09:19:18 Kyle Moffett wrote:
I think that in order for this to work, there would need to be some
ABI whereby the resume-ing kernel can pass its entire ACPI state and
a bunch of other
On Sep 22, 2007, at 06:34:17, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, 22 September 2007 01:19, Kyle Moffett wrote:
On Sep 21, 2007, at 17:16:59, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The ACPI platform firmware is allowed to preserve information
accross the
On Saturday, 22 September 2007 20:00, Kyle Moffett wrote:
On Sep 22, 2007, at 06:34:17, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, 22 September 2007 01:19, Kyle Moffett wrote:
On Sep 21, 2007, at 17:16:59, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The ACPI
On 9/21/07, Huang, Ying [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is fairly simple in fact. For example, you can specify the
bdev/sectors in kernel command line when do kexec load kexec -l ...
--append='...', then the image writing system can get it through
cat /proc/cmdline.
I hope you take into account
Hi.
On Saturday 22 September 2007 09:19:18 Kyle Moffett wrote:
> I think that in order for this to work, there would need to be some
> ABI whereby the resume-ing kernel can pass its entire ACPI state and
> a bunch of other ACPI-related device details to the resume-ed kernel,
> which I
On Sep 21, 2007, at 17:16:59, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The ACPI platform firmware is allowed to preserve information
accross the hibernation-resume cycle, so this need not be the same.
All of my comments related to the case where S4 is not
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Friday, 21 September 2007 23:08, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
>> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Friday, 21 September 2007 22:26, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
>> >> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
On Friday, 21 September 2007 23:08, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Friday, 21 September 2007 22:26, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
> >> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> > The ACPI NVS area is
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Friday, 21 September 2007 22:26, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
>> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > The ACPI NVS area is explicitly marked as reserved and we don't save it.
>> > On x86_64 we don't save any
On Friday, 21 September 2007 22:26, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [snip]
>
> > The ACPI NVS area is explicitly marked as reserved and we don't save it.
> > On x86_64 we don't save any memory areas marked as reserved and yet the
> > above
> >
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip]
> The ACPI NVS area is explicitly marked as reserved and we don't save it.
> On x86_64 we don't save any memory areas marked as reserved and yet the above
> happens.
I think you have mentioned before, though, that ACPI is first
initialized
On Friday, 21 September 2007 21:45, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > > > Well, the problem is that apparently some systems (eg. my HP nx6325)
> > > > expect us
> > > > to execute the _PTS ACPI global control method before creating the
> > > > image _and_
>
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > Well, the problem is that apparently some systems (eg. my HP nx6325)
> > > expect us
> > > to execute the _PTS ACPI global control method before creating the image
> > > _and_
> > > to execute acpi_enter_sleep_state(ACPI_STATE_S4) in order to
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Friday, 21 September 2007 15:14, huang ying wrote:
>> On 9/21/07, Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Friday, 21 September 2007 05:33, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> > > Nigel Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [--snip--]
>>
On Friday, 21 September 2007 20:11, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Friday, 21 September 2007 15:14, huang ying wrote:
> >> On 9/21/07, Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > On Friday, 21 September 2007 05:33, Eric W. Biederman
On Friday, 21 September 2007 17:02, huang ying wrote:
> On 9/21/07, Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Friday, 21 September 2007 15:14, huang ying wrote:
> > > On 9/21/07, Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Friday, 21 September 2007 05:33, Eric W. Biederman
On 9/21/07, Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday, 21 September 2007 15:14, huang ying wrote:
> > On 9/21/07, Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Friday, 21 September 2007 05:33, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > > > Nigel Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
On Friday, 21 September 2007 15:14, huang ying wrote:
> On 9/21/07, Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Friday, 21 September 2007 05:33, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > > Nigel Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[--snip--]
> > >
> > > No one has yet attacked the hard problem of
On 9/21/07, Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On Friday, 21 September 2007 03:41, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:19:59 +1000 Nigel Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > On Friday 21 September 2007 11:06:23 Andrew Morton
On 9/21/07, Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday, 21 September 2007 05:33, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > Nigel Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > That's not true. Kexec will itself be an implementation, otherwise you'd
> > > end
> > > up with people screaming
Hi.
On Friday 21 September 2007 22:18:19 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, 21 September 2007 13:58, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > On Friday 21 September 2007 21:56:29 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > [Besides, the current hibernation userland interface is used by default
by
> > >
On Friday, 21 September 2007 13:58, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Friday 21 September 2007 21:56:29 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > [Besides, the current hibernation userland interface is used by default by
> > openSUSE and it's also used by quite some Debian users, so we can't drop
> > it
On Friday, 21 September 2007 11:49, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > Seems like good enough for -mm to me.
>
> (For the record, I do not think this is going to be
> hibernation-replacement any time soon. But it is functionality useful
> for other stuff -- dump memory and continue -- and yes it
Hi.
On Friday 21 September 2007 21:56:29 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> [Besides, the current hibernation userland interface is used by default by
> openSUSE and it's also used by quite some Debian users, so we can't drop
> it overnight and it can't be implemented in a compatible way on top of the
>
On Friday, 21 September 2007 05:33, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Nigel Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > That's not true. Kexec will itself be an implementation, otherwise you'd
> > end
> > up with people screaming about no hibernation support.
>
> There needs to be an
Hi Andrew,
On Friday, 21 September 2007 03:41, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:19:59 +1000 Nigel Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hi.
> >
> > On Friday 21 September 2007 11:06:23 Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:24:34 +1000 Nigel Cunningham
> > <[EMAIL
Hi!
> > Seems like good enough for -mm to me.
(For the record, I do not think this is going to be
hibernation-replacement any time soon. But it is functionality useful
for other stuff -- dump memory and continue -- and yes it may be able
to do hibernation in the long term.
It really comes from
Hi!
> >
> > Sounds doable, as long as you can cope with long command lines (which
> > shouldn't be a biggie). (If you've got a swapfile or parts of a swap
> > partition already in use, it can be quite fragmented).
>
> Hmm. This is an interesting problem. Sharing a swap file or a swap
>
On Thu, 2007-09-20 at 22:01 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> "Huang, Ying" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Index: linux-2.6.23-rc6/include/linux/kexec.h
> > ===
> > --- linux-2.6.23-rc6.orig/include/linux/kexec.h 2007-09-20
> >
On Thu, 2007-09-20 at 20:55 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> "Huang, Ying" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This patch implements the functionality of jumping between the kexeced
> > kernel and the original kernel.
> >
> > A new reboot command named LINUX_REBOOT_CMD_KJUMP is defined to
> >
On Thu, 2007-09-20 at 20:55 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Huang, Ying [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This patch implements the functionality of jumping between the kexeced
kernel and the original kernel.
A new reboot command named LINUX_REBOOT_CMD_KJUMP is defined to
trigger the jumping
On Thu, 2007-09-20 at 22:01 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Huang, Ying [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Index: linux-2.6.23-rc6/include/linux/kexec.h
===
--- linux-2.6.23-rc6.orig/include/linux/kexec.h 2007-09-20
Hi!
Sounds doable, as long as you can cope with long command lines (which
shouldn't be a biggie). (If you've got a swapfile or parts of a swap
partition already in use, it can be quite fragmented).
Hmm. This is an interesting problem. Sharing a swap file or a swap
partition with
Hi!
Seems like good enough for -mm to me.
(For the record, I do not think this is going to be
hibernation-replacement any time soon. But it is functionality useful
for other stuff -- dump memory and continue -- and yes it may be able
to do hibernation in the long term.
It really comes from
On Friday, 21 September 2007 05:33, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Nigel Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's not true. Kexec will itself be an implementation, otherwise you'd
end
up with people screaming about no hibernation support.
There needs to be an implementation of
Hi Andrew,
On Friday, 21 September 2007 03:41, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:19:59 +1000 Nigel Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi.
On Friday 21 September 2007 11:06:23 Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:24:34 +1000 Nigel Cunningham
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Friday, 21 September 2007 11:49, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
Seems like good enough for -mm to me.
(For the record, I do not think this is going to be
hibernation-replacement any time soon. But it is functionality useful
for other stuff -- dump memory and continue -- and yes it may be
Hi.
On Friday 21 September 2007 21:56:29 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
[Besides, the current hibernation userland interface is used by default by
openSUSE and it's also used by quite some Debian users, so we can't drop
it overnight and it can't be implemented in a compatible way on top of the
On Friday, 21 September 2007 13:58, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi.
On Friday 21 September 2007 21:56:29 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
[Besides, the current hibernation userland interface is used by default by
openSUSE and it's also used by quite some Debian users, so we can't drop
it overnight
Hi.
On Friday 21 September 2007 22:18:19 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, 21 September 2007 13:58, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi.
On Friday 21 September 2007 21:56:29 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
[Besides, the current hibernation userland interface is used by default
by
openSUSE and
On 9/21/07, Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday, 21 September 2007 05:33, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Nigel Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's not true. Kexec will itself be an implementation, otherwise you'd
end
up with people screaming about no hibernation
On 9/21/07, Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Andrew,
On Friday, 21 September 2007 03:41, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:19:59 +1000 Nigel Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi.
On Friday 21 September 2007 11:06:23 Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 21
On Friday, 21 September 2007 15:14, huang ying wrote:
On 9/21/07, Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday, 21 September 2007 05:33, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Nigel Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[--snip--]
No one has yet attacked the hard problem of coming up with
On 9/21/07, Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday, 21 September 2007 15:14, huang ying wrote:
On 9/21/07, Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday, 21 September 2007 05:33, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Nigel Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[--snip--]
On Friday, 21 September 2007 17:02, huang ying wrote:
On 9/21/07, Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday, 21 September 2007 15:14, huang ying wrote:
On 9/21/07, Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday, 21 September 2007 05:33, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Friday, 21 September 2007 15:14, huang ying wrote:
On 9/21/07, Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday, 21 September 2007 05:33, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Nigel Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[--snip--]
No one has yet
On Friday, 21 September 2007 20:11, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Friday, 21 September 2007 15:14, huang ying wrote:
On 9/21/07, Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday, 21 September 2007 05:33, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Nigel
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Well, the problem is that apparently some systems (eg. my HP nx6325)
expect us
to execute the _PTS ACPI global control method before creating the image
_and_
to execute acpi_enter_sleep_state(ACPI_STATE_S4) in order to finally put
On Friday, 21 September 2007 21:45, Alan Stern wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Well, the problem is that apparently some systems (eg. my HP nx6325)
expect us
to execute the _PTS ACPI global control method before creating the
image _and_
to execute
Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[snip]
The ACPI NVS area is explicitly marked as reserved and we don't save it.
On x86_64 we don't save any memory areas marked as reserved and yet the above
happens.
I think you have mentioned before, though, that ACPI is first
initialized by the
On Friday, 21 September 2007 22:26, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[snip]
The ACPI NVS area is explicitly marked as reserved and we don't save it.
On x86_64 we don't save any memory areas marked as reserved and yet the
above
happens.
I
Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Friday, 21 September 2007 22:26, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[snip]
The ACPI NVS area is explicitly marked as reserved and we don't save it.
On x86_64 we don't save any memory areas marked as
On Friday, 21 September 2007 23:08, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Friday, 21 September 2007 22:26, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[snip]
The ACPI NVS area is explicitly marked as reserved and
Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Friday, 21 September 2007 23:08, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Friday, 21 September 2007 22:26, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[snip]
The ACPI
On Sep 21, 2007, at 17:16:59, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The ACPI platform firmware is allowed to preserve information
accross the hibernation-resume cycle, so this need not be the same.
All of my comments related to the case where S4 is not
Hi.
On Saturday 22 September 2007 09:19:18 Kyle Moffett wrote:
I think that in order for this to work, there would need to be some
ABI whereby the resume-ing kernel can pass its entire ACPI state and
a bunch of other ACPI-related device details to the resume-ed kernel,
which I believe
Nigel Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Sounds doable, as long as you can cope with long command lines (which
> shouldn't be a biggie). (If you've got a swapfile or parts of a swap
> partition already in use, it can be quite fragmented).
Hmm. This is an interesting problem. Sharing a
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:57:26 +1000 Nigel Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
> > > <[EMAIL
"Huang, Ying" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Index: linux-2.6.23-rc6/include/linux/kexec.h
> ===
> --- linux-2.6.23-rc6.orig/include/linux/kexec.h 2007-09-20 11:24:25.0
> +0800
> +++ linux-2.6.23-rc6/include/linux/kexec.h
Nigel Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> That's not true. Kexec will itself be an implementation, otherwise you'd end
> up with people screaming about no hibernation support.
There needs to be an implementation of hibernation based on kexec with
return yes.
> And it won't result in
>
Hi.
On Friday 21 September 2007 12:45:57 Huang, Ying wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 12:25 +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > On Friday 21 September 2007 12:18:57 Huang, Ying wrote:
> > > > That's not true. Kexec will itself be an implementation, otherwise
you'd
> > end
> > > > up
"Huang, Ying" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This patch implements the functionality of jumping between the kexeced
> kernel and the original kernel.
>
> A new reboot command named LINUX_REBOOT_CMD_KJUMP is defined to
> trigger the jumping to (executing) the new kernel and jumping back to
> the
On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 12:25 +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Friday 21 September 2007 12:18:57 Huang, Ying wrote:
> > > 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
> > >
Hi.
On Friday 21 September 2007 12:18:57 Huang, Ying wrote:
> > 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
On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 11:57 +1000, Nigel Cunningham 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
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Andrew.
> > > >
> > > > On Thursday 20 September 2007 20:09:41
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:19:59 +1000 Nigel Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Friday 21 September 2007 11:06:23 Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:24:34 +1000 Nigel Cunningham
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Andrew.
> > >
> > > On Thursday 20 September
Hi.
On Friday 21 September 2007 11:06:23 Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:24:34 +1000 Nigel Cunningham
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hi Andrew.
> >
> > On Thursday 20 September 2007 20:09:41 Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > Seems like good enough for -mm to me.
> > >
> > >
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:24:34 +1000 Nigel Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
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
Hi!
> This patch implements the functionality of jumping between the kexeced
> kernel and the original kernel.
>
> A new reboot command named LINUX_REBOOT_CMD_KJUMP is defined to
> trigger the jumping to (executing) the new kernel and jumping back to
> the original kernel.
>
> To support
Hi!
This patch implements the functionality of jumping between the kexeced
kernel and the original kernel.
A new reboot command named LINUX_REBOOT_CMD_KJUMP is defined to
trigger the jumping to (executing) the new kernel and jumping back to
the original kernel.
To support jumping
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
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:24:34 +1000 Nigel Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Hi.
On Friday 21 September 2007 11:06:23 Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:24:34 +1000 Nigel Cunningham
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Andrew.
On Thursday 20 September 2007 20:09:41 Pavel Machek wrote:
Seems like good enough for -mm to me.
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:19:59 +1000 Nigel Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi.
On Friday 21 September 2007 11:06:23 Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:24:34 +1000 Nigel Cunningham
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Andrew.
On Thursday 20 September 2007 20:09:41 Pavel
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Andrew.
On Thursday 20 September 2007 20:09:41 Pavel Machek wrote:
On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 11:57 +1000, Nigel Cunningham 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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Andrew.
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo