LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	nigel@nigel.suspend2.net,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Jeremy Maitin-Shepard <jbms@cmu.edu>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org,
	Kexec Mailing List <kexec@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation: kexec restore
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 09:14:37 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1188263677.2050.8.camel@caritas-dev.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070827213134.GE3398@elf.ucw.cz>

On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 23:31 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > This patch adds writing support for /dev/oldmem. This is used to
> > restore the memory contents of hibernated system.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>
> 
> > +ssize_t write_oldmem_page(unsigned long pfn, const char *buf,
> > +			  size_t csize, unsigned long offset, int userbuf)
> 
> Hmm, int userbuf is only ever set to one... Does it make sense to have
> write_oldmem_page in the separate file? The onl user is mem.c, perhaps
> it should go there?
> 

write_oldmem_page is kept to be consistent with copy_oldmem_page as much
as possible. The userbuf is used by copy_oldmem_page too, and
write_oldmem_page is in the same file as copy_oldmem_page. I think the
consistence between them is reasonable.

And the copy_oldmem_page/write_oldmem_page is considered to be
architecture dependent. Now, there are different implementations for
copy_oldmem_page on different architectures. So I think the
copy_oldmem_page/write_oldmem_page should be kept in separate file
instead of go mem.c.

Best Regards,
Huang Ying

  reply	other threads:[~2007-08-28  1:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-08-27  1:14 Huang, Ying
2007-08-27 21:31 ` Pavel Machek
2007-08-28  1:14   ` Huang, Ying [this message]
2007-08-29 15:15     ` Pavel Machek

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1188263677.2050.8.camel@caritas-dev.intel.com \
    --to=ying.huang@intel.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
    --cc=jbms@cmu.edu \
    --cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=nigel@nigel.suspend2.net \
    --cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
    --subject='Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2 -mm] kexec based hibernation: kexec restore' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).