[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200707172258.35113.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 22:58:33 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Jeremy Maitin-Shepard <jbms@....edu>
Cc: david@...g.hm, Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
"Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@....com>,
Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...el.suspend2.net>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com>
Subject: Re: Hibernation considerations
On Tuesday, 17 July 2007 22:39, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
> david@...g.hm writes:
>
> [snip]
>
> > the non-ACPI hibernate behaves very differently, and for some people (and I
> > think I am one of them) it will meet their needs better then _any_ of the ACPI
> > suspends.
>
> It may have certain differences from the user point of view, but from
> the implementation view, it seems that it is nearly exactly the same.
> The only differences seem to be:
>
> - rather than shutting down, do whatever is necessary to stick the
> system in S4 state.
>
> - make sure ACPI isn't initialized by the "load image" kernel
>
> - rather than "resume from hibernate" ACPI by initializing it normally,
> issue the special hibernate-related methods.
>
> Thus, it seems that supporting ACPI S4 will have a very minimal affect
> on the hibernate implementation.
Still, you need to take it into account.
Greetings,
Rafael
--
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Donald Knuth
-
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