[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071230142109.GK16946@elte.hu>
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 15:21:09 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Hibernation: Document __save_processor_state() on
x86-64
* Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl>
>
> Document the fact that __save_processor_state() has to save all CPU
> registers referred to by the kernel in case a different kernel is used
> to load and restore a hibernation image containing it.
ok - so i guess i should drop this from x86.git:
@@ -53,7 +53,6 @@ void __save_processor_state(struct saved
ctxt->cr2 = read_cr2();
ctxt->cr3 = read_cr3();
ctxt->cr4 = read_cr4();
- ctxt->cr8 = read_cr8();
}
right? But i'm wondering - are we really ever resuming to a different
kernel version, for this to be an issue?
Ingo
--
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