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 are
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 syn
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 with
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
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 hardwa
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.
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 i
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 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 oth
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
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 believ
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 b
"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 explici
"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 mem
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
> > h
"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 b
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 f
"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 wro
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 com
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 wro
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 abo
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
> > > ope
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 ove
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 m
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
> k
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
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 t
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
> partiti
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
> > 11
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
> > trigg
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 PROTECTED]>
"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 2007-
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
> t
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 w
"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 ori
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
> > > resul
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 kern
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 Pa
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
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 I
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 implementati
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
54 matches
Mail list logo
