From: Andrew Morton Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 18:41:06 -0700 Subject: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation -v3: kexec jump In-Reply-To: <200709211120.00448.ncunningham@crca.org.au> References: <1190266447.21818.17.camel@caritas-dev.intel.com> <200709211024.35991.nigel@nigel.suspend2.net> <20070920180623.5d7da7b9.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <200709211120.00448.ncunningham@crca.org.au> Message-ID: <20070920184106.79e1858a.akpm@linux-foundation.org> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: kexec@lists.infradead.org On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:19:59 +1000 Nigel Cunningham wrote: > Hi. > > On Friday 21 September 2007 11:06:23 Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:24:34 +1000 Nigel Cunningham > wrote: > > > > > Hi Andrew. > > > > > > On Thursday 20 September 2007 20:09:41 Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > Seems like good enough for -mm to me. > > > > > > > > Pavel > > > > > > Andrew, if I recall correctly, you said a while ago that you didn't want > > > another hibernation implementation in the vanilla kernel. If you're going > to > > > consider merging this kexec code, will you also please consider merging > > > TuxOnIce? > > > > > > > The theory is that kexec-based hibernation will mainly use preexisting > > kexec code and will permit us to delete the existing hibernation > > implementation. > > > > That's different from replacing it. > > TuxOnIce doesn't remove the existing implementation either. It can > transparently replace it, but you can enable/disable that at compile time. Right. So we end up with two implementations in-tree. Whereas kexec-based-hibernation leads us to having zero implementations in-tree. See, it's different.