Re: [PATH 0/1] Kexec jump - v2 - the first step to kexec based hibernation

david
2007-07-19T03:30:47Z

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007, Nigel Cunningham wrote:

> Hi.
>
> On Thursday 19 July 2007 11:04:20 Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 15:13:13 +0800
>> "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The changelog between v1 and v2
>>>
>>> 1. The kexec jump implementation is put into the kexec/kdump
>>> framework instead of software suspend framework. The device
>>> and CPU state save/restore code of software suspend is called
>>> when needed.
>>>
>>> 2. The same code path is used for both kexec a new kernel and jump
>>> back to original kernel.
>>
>> I like the idea but I think I'll let people chat about it a bit more
>> before looking at merging the patches, OK?
>
> Please wait until you see a complete implementation that actually works. I'm
> sitting here quietly, following (and now breaking) the "If you can't say
> anything positive, don't say anything at all" line because I think that the
> more into the implementation details people get, the uglier this is going to
> show itself to be. I'm perfectly willing to be proven wrong, but haven't seen
> anything so far that's even begun to convince me otherwise.

as someone who's eager to have this work, I have to agree with Nigel that
it's premature to talk about merging anything.

the only exception I could see is if there are other uses for this
functionality. but even then, let things settle out a little bit.

David Lang