From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965071AbXCHHuq (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Mar 2007 02:50:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965164AbXCHHuq (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Mar 2007 02:50:46 -0500 Received: from e32.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.150]:41022 "EHLO e32.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965071AbXCHHup (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Mar 2007 02:50:45 -0500 Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 13:18:58 +0530 From: Vivek Goyal To: Nigel Cunningham Cc: Arjan van de Ven , linux kernel mailing list , Reloc Kernel List , ebiederm@xmission.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, ak@suse.de, hpa@zytor.com, magnus.damm@gmail.com, lwang@redhat.com, dzickus@redhat.com, pavel@suse.cz, rjw@sisk.pl Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/20] x86_64 Relocatable bzImage support (V4) Message-ID: <20070308074858.GM6000@in.ibm.com> Reply-To: vgoyal@in.ibm.com References: <20070307065703.GA23412@in.ibm.com> <1173280059.3540.5.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <1173300597.3219.105.camel@nigel.suspend2.net> <1173309302.13442.0.camel@nigel.suspend2.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1173309302.13442.0.camel@nigel.suspend2.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 10:15:02AM +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > Hi. > > On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 07:49 +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > Hi. > > > > On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 07:07 -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 12:27 +0530, Vivek Goyal wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > Here is another attempt on x86_64 relocatable bzImage patches(V4). This > > > > patchset makes a bzImage relocatable and same kernel binary can be loaded > > > > and run from different physical addresses. > > > > > > > > > have these patches been extensively tested with various suspend > > > scenarios? (S1,S3,S4 in acpi speak or s2ram and s2disk in Linux speak) > > > > We did work on this for RHEL5, getting relocatable kernel support > > working fine with S4. While doing it and since, I've been running > > Suspend2 with the same patch. > > > > Since that work, Vivek has done more modifications, but I can confirm > > that the basic design is reliable with S4. Haven't tried S3, but can do. > > Will report back shortly. > > S3 works okay here with a relocatable x86_64 kernel (2.6.20). > Ok. Got hold of a system which supports Standby mode (S1) and it works fine with 2.6.21-rc2 + relocatable patchset. Thanks Vivek