Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763785AbYJJTtj (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:49:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1761898AbYJJTt3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:49:29 -0400 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:53951 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761600AbYJJTt2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:49:28 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] first callers of process_deny_checkpoint() Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 21:53:44 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: Dave Hansen , "Serge E. Hallyn" , containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, arnd@arndb.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Arjan van de Ven , Peter Zijlstra , ACPI Devel Maling List References: <20081009190405.13A253CB@kernel> <200810101517.17809.rjw@sisk.pl> <20081010145422.GE11695@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20081010145422.GE11695@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200810102153.45174.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1379 Lines: 34 On Friday, 10 of October 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > In the long run, could we expect a (experimental) version of > > > hibernation that would just use this checkpointing facility to > > > hibernate? > > > > Surely not ACPI-compliant. > > what do you mean? The ACPI spec says quite specifically what should be done while entering hibernation and during resume from hibernation. We're not following that in the current code, but we can (gradually) update the code to become ACPI-compilant in that respect. However, if we go the checkpointing route, I don't think that will be possible any more. [In short, the problem is that ACPI regards the S4 state corresponding to hibernation as a sleep state of the system which is therefore fundamentally different from the soft power-off state and requires special handling.] This may be a theory etc. (I don't want to start the entire discussion about that once again), but clearly there's a choice to be made here. I'd prefer hibernation to be ACPI-compliant, but if people don't want that, I won't fight for it. Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/