From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI / PM: Blacklist another machine that needs acpi_sleep=nonvs Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 14:19:48 +0100 Message-ID: <20101026131948.GA9221@srcf.ucam.org> References: <201010172101.21576.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:55209 "EHLO cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932857Ab0JZNUC (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Oct 2010 09:20:02 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Len Brown Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , ACPI Devel Maling List , Linux-pm mailing list , Emanuele Bigiarini On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 08:14:42PM -0400, Len Brown wrote: > Rather than a black list of machines that can not survive saving NVS, > I wonder how long a white list of machines requiring NVS save would be? Windows saves the NVS area in my testing. Either there's something that indicates the choices of one behaviour over the other, or the machines that are broken by NVS saving are actually tripping some other bug. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org