Hi. On Friday 21 September 2007 11:41:06 Andrew Morton wrote:want going merging 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 kernel. At the very least, it's going to want the kernel being hibernated to have an interface by which it can find out which pages need to be saved. I wouldn't be surprised if it also ends up with an interface in which the kernel being hibernated tells it what bdev/sectors in which to save the image as well (otherwise you're going to need a dedicated, otherwise untouched partition exclusively for the kexec'd kernel to use), or what network settings to use if it wants to try to save the image to a network storage device. On top of that, there are all the issues related to device reinitialisation and so on, and it looks like there's greatly increased pain for users wanting to configure this new implementation. Kexec is by no means proven to be the panacea for all the issues. Regards, Nigel -- Nigel Cunningham Pastor Christian Reformed Church of Cobden Victoria, Australia +61 3 5595 1185 -
| Scott Preece | Re: Linux Foundation Technical Advisory Board Elections |
| Luis R. Rodriguez | Re: [Announce] Linux-tiny project revival |
| Andrew Morton | 2.6.23-rc1-mm2 |
| Dave Hansen | [PATCH 02/24] rearrange may_open() to be r/o friendly |
git: | |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| David Miller | Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
