On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 3:52 AM, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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 be
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 rather
than the HIBERNATE symbol. I could certainly spin up a patch for that but nobody
seemed to have reached a conclusion.
As far as pulling the patches is concerned, IIRC, Rafael & Stefano
were talking "git"
jargon, as to who is going to take which patch.
Meanwhile, recently, Stefano said his branch went into linux-next
(my patches are not in that tree last I checked. :( ).
shriram
> Ian.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home