Re: [PATCH] Hibernation: Document __save_processor_state() on x86-64

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Sunday, 30 of December 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > > But i'm wondering - are we really ever resuming to a different 
> > > kernel version, for this to be an issue?
> > 
> > The boot kernel may be different from the kernel within the image, if 
> > that's what you're asking for.
> 
> how different can it be, for resume to work? I mean, we'll have deeply 
> kernel version dependent variables in RAM. Am i missing something 
> obvious?

On x86-64 it can be almost totally different (by restoring a hibernation image
we replace the entire contents of RAM with almost no constraints).

[Well, using a relocatable kernel for restoring an image with nonrelocatable one
or vice versa is rather not the best idea, but everything else should work in
theory.]

On i386 the boot kernel is still required to be the same as the one in the
image.

Greetings,
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/