Re: [PATCH] Hibernation: Document __save_processor_state() on x86-64

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



* Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> wrote:

> > how different can it be, for resume to work? I mean, we'll have 
> > deeply kernel version dependent variables in RAM. Am i missing 
> > something obvious?
> 
> On x86-64 it can be almost totally different (by restoring a 
> hibernation image we replace the entire contents of RAM with almost no 
> constraints).
> 
> [Well, using a relocatable kernel for restoring an image with 
> nonrelocatable one or vice versa is rather not the best idea, but 
> everything else should work in theory.]
> 
> On i386 the boot kernel is still required to be the same as the one in 
> the image.

what's exactly in the hibernation image? Dirty data i suppose - but what 
about kernel-internal pages. What if we go from SLAB to SLUB? What if 
the size of a structure changes? Etc.

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux