Re: [PATCH 0/20] x86_64 Relocatable bzImage support (V4)

[Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@in.ibm.com>]

On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 07:07:23PM +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi.
> 
> On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 10:10 +0530, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > 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).
> > > 
> > 
> > Hi Nigel,
> > 
> > Is it possible to test S3 with 2.6.21-rc2 kernels also. Right now I don't 
> > have access to any machine supporting S3. I tested it at the time of my last
> > posting and it had worked well. Appreciate your help.
> 
> Tested with rc3 (rc2 wouldn't compile), and it works fine.
> 

Thanks a lot Nigel.

> If you're willing, please add
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nigel Cunningham <ncunning@redhat.com>
> 
> or
> 
> Acked-by: Nigel Cunningham <ncunning@redhat.com>
> 
> to the hibernation related parts as you see appropriate, since I helped
> (albeit in a minor way compared to your work and Eric's work) with
> preparing and testing them for RHEL5 and have confirmed they're still ok
> in this version.

Sure. You have helped a lot. I think either Andi or Andrew needs to
add "Acked-by:" string while adding the hibernation related patches
(Assuming they decide do pick up the patches.)

Thanks
Vivek