From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Kexec jump: The first step to kexec base hibernation Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 14:49:12 +0000 Message-ID: <20070712144912.GA4987@ucw.cz> References: <1184167831.12556.13.camel@caritas-dev.intel.com> <4695C096.5080400@goop.org> <200707121446.14170.rjw@sisk.pl> <469631FA.2070405@rtr.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <469631FA.2070405@rtr.ca> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Mark Lord Cc: david@lang.hm, Jeremy Fitzhardinge , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Huang, Ying" , Andrew Morton , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Hi! > And the complexity and difficulty of setup really scares > me. > Right now, we've got a pretty good/fast in-kernel (well, > external patch) > that allows my machines to hibernate very quickly, wake > up even faster, > and not swap like mad afterwards. Without any external > programs, > initramfs, or extra kernels required. > > And we want to replace this with an ultra-complex setup > because.. ???? ...freezer does not work with fuse :-). Or more exactly because freezer is ugly, and we don't know how to get rid of it... (Not that I advocate kexec-based hibernation. I think it is going to suck. But it might allow kdump-but-keep-running, so work is not wasted). Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html