From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nigel Cunningham Subject: Re: [ACPI] Re: [PATCH] s4bios for 2.5.59 + apci-20030123 Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 08:44:08 +1300 Sender: linux-kernel-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org Message-ID: <1044560648.1700.17.camel@laptop-linux.cunninghams> References: <20030204221003.GA250@elf.ucw.cz> <1044477704.1648.19.camel@laptop-linux.cunninghams> <20030206153757.GB19350@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-reply-to: <20030206153757.GB19350-jyMamyUUXNJG4ohzP4jBZS1Fcj925eT/@public.gmane.org> To: Pavel Machek Cc: "Grover, Andrew" , ducrot-kk6yZipjEM5g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List , ACPI List List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2003-02-07 at 04:37, Pavel Machek wrote: > No, no. It has to be exactly the same kernel, otherwise you get a nice > crash (if you are lucky) and ugly data corruption (when you are not); > there's check to prevent that and panic, however. > > That's why I call S4bios more foolproof. Oh of course; I'm with you. If you're running a different kernel, you must have had an entirely different context when you suspended. Humble apologies; I was only thinking about whether the image would successfully load, not the difference in contents. Regards, Nigel