Hi!
> > > Yes. I thought about using PG_nosave in the begining, but there's a
> > >
> > > BUG_ON(PageReserved(page) && PageNosave(page));
> > >
> > > in swsusp.c:saveable() that I just didn't want to trigger. It seems to
> > > me,
> > > though, that we don't need it any more, do we?
> >
> > No, we can just kill it. It was "if something unexpected happens, bail
> > out soon".
>
> OK
>
> The following is what I'm comfortable with. I didn't took the Nigel's patch
> literally, because we do one thing differently (ie nosave pfns) and it
> contained
> some changes that I thought were unnecessary. The i386 part is
> untested.
I'd add
> page = pfn_to_page(pfn);
> - BUG_ON(PageReserved(page) && PageNosave(page));
a comment here explaining what PageReserved && PageNosave means.
> if (PageNosave(page))
> return 0;
> +
> if (PageReserved(page) && pfn_is_nosave(pfn)) {
> pr_debug("[nosave pfn 0x%lx]", pfn);
> return 0;
AFAICT it only fixes "potential" bug, so it can probably wait. Once
non-contiguous and initramfs patches are in, this can go...
Pavel
--
People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers...
...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl!
-
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/
