From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932152AbVJEUwr (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Oct 2005 16:52:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751114AbVJEUwr (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Oct 2005 16:52:47 -0400 Received: from [203.171.93.254] ([203.171.93.254]:7849 "EHLO cunningham.myip.net.au") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750832AbVJEUwq (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Oct 2005 16:52:46 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Free swap suspend from depending upon PageReserved. From: Nigel Cunningham Reply-To: ncunningham@cyclades.com To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Pavel Machek , Linux Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: <200510051454.56096.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <1128506536.5514.13.camel@localhost> <20051005121222.GA22580@elf.ucw.cz> <200510051454.56096.rjw@sisk.pl> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Cyclades Message-Id: <1128544625.10363.5.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6-1mdk Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 06:37:06 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi. On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 22:54, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Hi, > > On Wednesday, 5 of October 2005 14:12, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > > Here's the patch we've previously discussed, which removes the > > > dependancy of swap suspend on PageReserved. > > > > This ends up in Linus' changelog, so "we've previously discussed" > > is not okay here. Missing signed-off. What is benefit of this? > > > > swsusp part looks okay, but will Andrew like the generic part? I guess > > I'd prefer to postpone this one (unless we are last user of > > PageReserved) -- I do not see too big benefit and there's potential > > for breakage. > > Basically, what it does is to make swsusp avoid saving (and restoring) > non-RAM pages (like the ISA hole, BIOS etc.). I think it is a nice thing > to do and it does not hurt anyone (it only clears and/or sets PG_nosave > at some places). However, if we decide to do this for i386, it should > also be done for x86-64. True. I wasn't thinking about others arches, and should have. I'll modify the patch and seek to repost today. Regards, Nigel > Greetings, > Rafael --