On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 07:42:00AM -0800, Shriram Rajagopalan wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 3:52 AM, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 11:45 +0000, Frank Pan wrote:
> >> > AFAIK the conclusion is that an approach which ensures both
> >> > XEN_SAVE_RESTORE and SUSPEND (actually HIBERNATE after the above
> >> > discussion) are enable when necessary (by making the former depend on
> >> > the later) is what is going to be taken.
> >> That's good. How long will it be committed on pvops trees?
> > I don't know. Stefano, Rafael and Shriram are taking care of it AFAIK.
> Well, from my side, I am waiting on Stefano & Rafael. The discussion seemed
> to have ended with "lets wait for the code to settle", though there seemed to
> no consensus regarding the need to enable HIBERNATE for XEN_SAVE_RESTORE
> to work.
> Someone suggested creating a new user visible hibernate symbol that would
> solve this issue and make the main hibernate logic depend on this symbol
> than the HIBERNATE symbol. I could certainly spin up a patch for that but
> seemed to have reached a conclusion.
Please do. I was under the understanding that we were waiting for a
to implement that.
That was the only thing gatting your patchset going in.
Xen-devel mailing list