[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87d4wb680u.fsf@jbms.ath.cx>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:08:49 -0400
From: Jeremy Maitin-Shepard <jbms@....edu>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...el.suspend2.net>,
nigel@...pend2.net, Kexec Mailing List <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
"Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl> writes:
> On Friday, 21 September 2007 22:26, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
>> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl> writes:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > The ACPI NVS area is explicitly marked as reserved and we don't save it.
>> > On x86_64 we don't save any memory areas marked as reserved and yet the
> above
>> > happens.
>>
>> I think you have mentioned before, though, that ACPI is first
>> initialized by the boot kernel, before it is later initialized by
>> resuming kernel. This could well be the source of the problem.
> No, it's not. I have tested that too with an ACPI-less boot kernel.
Well, it seems that there just must be some other bug. I would define
anything that differs between the post-resume initialization of ACPI from
the normal boot initialization of ACPI as a bug. If the interaction
with the hardware is the same, then the behavior will be the same.
--
Jeremy Maitin-Shepard
-
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