On Mon 2007-12-17 01:27:29, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, 15 of December 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > Linux never uses that register. The only user is suspend
> > > > save/restore, but that' bogus because it wasn't ever initialized by
> > > > Linux in the first place. It could be probably all safely removed.
> > >
> > > It probably is safe to remove... but we currently support '2.8.95
> > > kernel loads/resumes 2.6.24 image'... which would break if 2.8 uses
> > > cr8.
> > >
> > > So please keep it if it is not a big problem.
> >
> > hm, so __save_processor_state() is in essence an ABI? Could you please
> > also send a patch that documents this prominently, in the structure
> > itself?
>
> Hmm, I'm not sure if it really is an ABI part. It doesn't communicate
> anything
> outside of the kernel in which it is defined.
Well, it is not "application binary interface", but it is
"kernel-to-kernel binary interface"...
> The problem is, though, that if kernel A is used for resuming kernel B, and
> kernel B doesn't save/restore everything it will need after the resume, then
> things will break if kernel A modifies that. So, yes, we'll need to document
> that explicitly.
Agreed.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures)
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
