Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, 13 July 2007 19:32, Huang, Ying wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 20:06 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >> I agree, a stipped down hibernate kernel can be very small, not > > > >> allocating this memory until it's needed is a step for the final > > > >> polishing. > > > > > > > > I'm not sure if I agree with that. In any case, having to use two > > > > different kernels for hibernation would be a big drawback. > > > > > > I see it as a big advantage to not have to use the main kernel for the > > > suspend. please keep it as an option at least. > > > > Yes. It has additional bonus to make it possible to write/read image > > from a program other than main kernel. For example, for a specific > > mobile device product (Such as Intel MID), a customized ultra-small > > program (or kernel) can be composed to write/read image. That way, the > > hibernate/resume time can be reduced to minimal.
Sounds great! > You don't need kexec for that. This is how the userland hibernation (aka > uswsusp) works. I don't think so. uswsusp runs under the normal kernel which implies an interdependency, whereas a device driver stub'd with a small single proc kernel would run in its own space. The question is, how small could this kernel stub be made and still leverage the device driver pool? Thanks! -- Al - 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/
