[PATCH -mm] kexec jump -v9
ying.huang at intel.com
Tue Mar 11 22:26:28 EDT 2008
On Tue, 2008-03-11 at 23:18 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, 11 of March 2008, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > Rafael/Pavel, does the approach of doing hibernation using a separate
> > kernel holds promise?
> Well, what can I say?
> I haven't been a big fan of doing hibernation this way since the very beginning
> and I still have the same reservations. Namely, my opinion is that the
> hibernation-related problems we have are not just solvable this way. For one
> example, in order to stop using the freezer for suspend/hibernation we first
> need to revamp the suspending/resuming of devices (uder way) and the
> kexec-based approach doesn't help us here. I wouldn't like to start another
> discussion about it though.
Yes. We need to work on device drivers for all hibernation
implementations. And kexec-based hibernation provides a possible method
to avoid freezer after driver works done.
More information about the kexec