WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 0/3] xen: Use PM/Hibernate events for save/re

To: rshriram@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 0/3] xen: Use PM/Hibernate events for save/restore/chkpt
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 21:52:02 +0100
Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx>, "linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 12:52:52 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <AANLkTimVaxA6fJw+pKacAt=KAt6b9qTZFAL1sjSKbhX6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <1298157158-5421-1-git-send-email-rshriram@xxxxxxxxx> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1102281104180.19277@kaball-desktop> <AANLkTimVaxA6fJw+pKacAt=KAt6b9qTZFAL1sjSKbhX6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.38-rc7+; KDE/4.4.4; x86_64; ; )
On Friday, March 04, 2011, Shriram Rajagopalan wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 3:06 AM, Stefano Stabellini
> <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Feb 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> On Friday, February 25, 2011, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 24 Feb 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> > > > I believe it only "[PATCH 3/3] PM: pm.h - Add comments about Xen 
> >> > > > save/restore/chkpt use case"
> >> > > >
> >> > > > (http://marc.info/?i=1298157158-5421-4-git-send-email-rshriram@xxxxxxxxx)
> >> > >
> >> > > This particular one should go in _after_ the functional patches.
> >> > >
> >> > > > I or Stefano (these patches are against Ian's tree which is againsts 
> >> > > > Stefano's
> >> > > > tree) can take the other patches and stick Pavel's Ack, Rafeal's 
> >> > > > Ack, Ian's Ack
> >> > > > on them and also my Signed-off for the Xen bits.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I think that would work?
> >> > >
> >> > > In fact, I think it's better if all patches go through the Xen tree.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > I don't mind taking them but if they have to go after your
> >> > suspend-2.6/linux-next tree this would introduce a new dependency in the
> >> > branch I am preparing for linux-next myself.
> >> >
> >> > Should I pull your suspend-2.6/linux-next tree into my linux-next branch?
> >> > Considering that this could create conflicts in linux-next if you
> >> > force-push your tree with some new changes and I don't update my version
> >> > of it, maybe it is better if I pull only a reduced version of it with
> >> > just the strict dependencies?
> >>
> >> It's not that simple, I think you'd need to pull my entire linux-next 
> >> branch
> >> because of the dependencies between commits in there.
> >>
> >> Alternatively, I can take the entire $subject patchset.
> >>
> >> Still, I'd like the discussion to settle before anyway.
> >
> There has been no further discussion on this issue so far. Is there a
> consensus ? To summarize:
>  XEN_SAVE_RESTORE depends on HIBERNATE, and in order to
> enable the save/restore functionality, the user has to enable HIBERNATE
> explicitly.
>  In thread "xen: fix XEN_SAVE_RESTORE Kconfig dependencies", Jan raised
> an issue about "selecting" HIBERNATE & SWAP without the user's knowledge. That
> was resolved by making XEN_SAVE_RESTORE "depend" on HIBERNATE and
> making the user explicitly select it.
>  Rafael suggested making an intermediate interface CONFIG_HIBERNATE_INTERFACE
> as an alternative but at the cost of a lot of code rework possibly.

Not really.  There are a few files I'd like to depend on
CONFIG_HIBERNATE_INTERFACE initially (in kernel/power/ mostly) and the more
fine-grained differentiation can be done later over time.

So, my suggestion is to introduce CONFIG_HIBERNATE_INTERFACE as discussed
elsewhere and rework CONFIG_XEN_SAVE_RESTORE accordingly.

Thanks,
Rafael

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>