[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:54:22 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, arnd@...db.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] first callers of process_deny_checkpoint()
* Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> > In the long run, could we expect a (experimental) version of
> > hibernation that would just use this checkpointing facility to
> > hibernate?
>
> Surely not ACPI-compliant.
what do you mean?
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