Re: [PATCH -mm] kexec jump -v9

[Huang, Ying]

On Tue, 2008-03-11 at 23:18 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, 11 of March 2008, Vivek Goyal wrote:
[...]
> > Rafael/Pavel, does the approach of doing hibernation using a separate
> > kernel holds promise?
> 
> Well, what can I say?
> 
> I haven't been a big fan of doing hibernation this way since the very beginning
> and I still have the same reservations.  Namely, my opinion is that the
> hibernation-related problems we have are not just solvable this way.  For one
> example, in order to stop using the freezer for suspend/hibernation we first
> need to revamp the suspending/resuming of devices (uder way) and the
> kexec-based approach doesn't help us here.  I wouldn't like to start another
> discussion about it though.

Yes. We need to work on device drivers for all hibernation
implementations. And kexec-based hibernation provides a possible method
to avoid freezer after driver works done.

Best Regards,
Huang Ying

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