Re: [PATCH 0/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v5

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Huang, Ying <ying.huang@...>
Cc: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...>, Pavel Machek <pavel@...>, <nigel@...>, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...>, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard <jbms@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, <linux-pm@...>, Kexec Mailing List <kexec@...>
Date: Friday, October 19, 2007 - 3:53 pm

Huang, Ying wrote:

Doesn't this also save the memory of kernel B?


Why is a third kernel needed?  Why can't kernel B be used for this as 
well?  In fact, if kernel A has been compiled to be relocatable and 
crash dump enabled, why wouldn't it suffice for all 3 instances?


-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[PATCH 0/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v5, Huang, Ying, (Wed Oct 10, 10:13 pm)
Re: [PATCH 0/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v5, Phillip Susi, (Fri Oct 19, 3:53 pm)
Re: [PATCH 0/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v5, huang ying, (Sat Oct 20, 1:50 am)
Re: [PATCH 0/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v5, Rafael J. Wysocki, (Thu Oct 11, 6:17 am)
Re: [PATCH 0/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v5, Huang, Ying, (Thu Oct 11, 11:19 pm)
Re: [PATCH 0/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v5, Rafael J. Wysocki, (Fri Oct 12, 7:37 am)