On Friday, 24 August 2007 11:02, Pavel Machek wrote:
quoted text
> Hi!
> 
> > > > No, I do not think I like that. I believe both -> control and -> crc
> > > > is just useless paranoia. Bitflip in this area is not going to be any
> > > > worse than bitflip anywhere else, we should not pretend this is
> > > > somehow "more important".
> > > > 
> > > > -> control should really be "protocol version"... probably should
> > > > contain some field that is easy to increment.
> > > 
> > > OK
> > > 
> > > Perhaps I'll just remove the crc field.
> > 
> > Like in the patch below.
> 
> Yep, thanks.
> 
> > ---
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
> > 
> > Since we already pass the address of restore_registers() in the image header,
> > we can also pass the value of the CR3 register from before the hibernation in
> > the same way.  This will allow us to avoid using init_level4_pgt page tables
> > during the restore.
> 
> ACK.
> 
> > @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
> >  
> >  #include <linux/smp.h>
> >  #include <linux/suspend.h>
> > +#include <linux/crc32.h>
> >  #include <asm/proto.h>
> >  #include <asm/page.h>
> >  #include <asm/pgtable.h>
> 
> This one is no longer neccessary.

I forgot about it.

I've already sent the 1/4 and 2/4 patches to Andrew, so I'll keep the remaining
two ones in the queue for a couple of days.

Thanks for the ACKs!

Greetings,
Rafael
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/