Followup to: <JKEGJJAJPOLNIFPAEDHLGEEFDFAA.laramie.leavitt@btinternet.com>
By author: "Laramie Leavitt" <laramie.leavitt@btinternet.com>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> So if the Two Kernel Monte patch was combined with the
> system suspend/resume in swap patch then you add some
> transitions so that the code path does this:
>
> 1- Suspend->Monte
> 2- Monte->Load new Kernel
> 3- Load->Resume.
>
> If it was just for very similar kernels, i.e. most
> -pre and -ac kernels it would probably work fine.
> If not, then you could just do the Monte route.
>
The problem is that "freezing" the kernel state and then
reconstructing it into a form USABLE BY ANOTHER KERNEL (not even
necessarily another kernel version) is unbelievably hard; furthermore,
it imposes a severe constrains about the kind of changes you're
allowed to make during your kernel development.
It's a bad idea, folks. Give it up.
-hpa
-- <hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 15 2001 - 21:00:15 EST