On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> I've just noticed that all the subject lines are off by one. Sorry.
> Shall I repost with it right this time?
Yes the subject lines did look a bit confusing, it may be easier in future
to add a short description of the patch instead of relying on the
Requested changes applied.
Thanks!
Nigel
On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 15:58, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On 7/6/05, Nigel Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > diff -ruNp
> > 520-version-specific-x86_64.patch-old/include/asm-x86_64/suspend2.h
> > 520-version-specific-x86_64.patch-new/include/asm-x86_64
Hi.
Thanks for pointing those things out. The ifdef is there because x86_64
is still work in progress. I'll try Qemu to get this patch up to
scratch.
Regards,
Nigel
On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 15:58, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On 7/6/05, Nigel Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > diff -ruNp
> > 520-
Ah my bad.
This must be from before I discovered that the subjects got mismatched
with the patches :>
Nigel
On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 15:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 01:49:22PM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > This patch came from Hu Gang.
> >
> > Regards,
>
On 7/6/05, Nigel Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> diff -ruNp
> 520-version-specific-x86_64.patch-old/include/asm-x86_64/suspend2.h
> 520-version-specific-x86_64.patch-new/include/asm-x86_64/suspend2.h
> --- 520-version-specific-x86_64.patch-old/include/asm-x86_64/suspend2.h
> 1970-01-01 1
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 01:49:22PM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi.
>
> This patch came from Hu Gang.
>
> Regards,
>
> Nigel
:), Maybe you are wrong, I just do a ppc port not x86_64.
--
Hu Gang .-.
/v\
// \\
Linux User /( )\ [204016]
GPG Key ID ^^-^
Hi.
I've just noticed that all the subject lines are off by one. Sorry.
Shall I repost with it right this time?
Regarding this x86_64 patch, I haven't been able to test x86_64 support
yet (no hardware here), so I'm sure you're right about all the things.
I've really just parroted what swsusp does
Hi.
This patch came from Hu Gang.
Regards,
Nigel
On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 12:20, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> diff -ruNp
> 520-version-specific-x86_64.patch-old/arch/x86_64/kernel/asm-offsets.c
> 520-version-specific-x86_64.patch-new/arch/x86_64/kernel/asm-offsets.c
> --- 520-version-specific-x86_6
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> + /*
> + * eflags
> + */
> + asm volatile ("pushfl ; popl (%0)" : "=m"
> (suspend2_saved_context.eflags));
To be future proof you probably want to do pushfq/popq
> +
> + /*
> + * control registers
> + */
> + asm
diff -ruNp
520-version-specific-x86_64.patch-old/arch/x86_64/kernel/asm-offsets.c
520-version-specific-x86_64.patch-new/arch/x86_64/kernel/asm-offsets.c
--- 520-version-specific-x86_64.patch-old/arch/x86_64/kernel/asm-offsets.c
2005-06-20 11:46:49.0 +1000
+++ 520-version-specific-x8
10 matches
Mail list logo
