[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46329DE3.6020307@goop.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 18:05:39 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Pekka J Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...el.suspend2.net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Back to the future.
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> While that would certainly be nifty, I think we're arguably starting
> from the wrong point here. Why are we booting a kernel, trying to poke
> the hardware back into some sort of mock-quiescent state, freeing memory
> and then (finally) overwriting the entire contents of RAM rather than
> just doing all of this from the bootloader?
Sure, you could make suspend generate a complete bootable kernel image
containing all RAM. Doesn't sound too hard to me. You know, from over
here on the sidelines.
J
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists