[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200712302248.03567.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 22:48:02 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
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
On Sunday, 30 of December 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
>
> > > But i'm wondering - are we really ever resuming to a different
> > > kernel version, for this to be an issue?
> >
> > The boot kernel may be different from the kernel within the image, if
> > that's what you're asking for.
>
> how different can it be, for resume to work? I mean, we'll have deeply
> kernel version dependent variables in RAM. Am i missing something
> obvious?
On x86-64 it can be almost totally different (by restoring a hibernation image
we replace the entire contents of RAM with almost no constraints).
[Well, using a relocatable kernel for restoring an image with nonrelocatable one
or vice versa is rather not the best idea, but everything else should work in
theory.]
On i386 the boot kernel is still required to be the same as the one in the
image.
Greetings,
Rafael
--
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