[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] PM: Add visible HIBERNATION_INTERFACE and hide HIBERNATION

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx>]

On Tuesday, March 15, 2011, Shriram Rajagopalan wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Shriram Rajagopalan <rshriram@xxxxxxxxx> 
> wrote:
> > HIBERNATION covers the main hibernation control code and freeze-thaw
> > pm events, that xen's save/restore also uses. Explicitly enabling
> > an independant hibernation functionality to enable xen's save/restore
> > is a bit ugly. Define a new user visible symbol HIBERNATION_INTERFACE
> > that "selects" HIBERNATION and covers the main hibernation control code
> > instead of HIBERNATION. This way, we can also make XEN_SAVE_RESTORE
> > "select" HIBERNATION, enabling only the freeze-thaw code.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Shriram Rajagopalan <rshriram@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  kernel/power/Kconfig     |    9 +++++++--
> >  kernel/power/hibernate.c |    4 ++++
> >  kernel/power/main.c      |    2 +-
> >  kernel/power/user.c      |    2 ++
> >  4 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/power/Kconfig b/kernel/power/Kconfig
> > index 4603f08..493c678 100644
> > --- a/kernel/power/Kconfig
> > +++ b/kernel/power/Kconfig
> > @@ -19,10 +19,15 @@ config SUSPEND_FREEZER
> >          Turning OFF this setting is NOT recommended! If in doubt, say Y.
> >
> >  config HIBERNATION
> > -       bool "Hibernation (aka 'suspend to disk')"
> > -       depends on SWAP && ARCH_HIBERNATION_POSSIBLE
> > +       def_bool n
> > +       depends on ARCH_HIBERNATION_POSSIBLE
> >        select LZO_COMPRESS
> >        select LZO_DECOMPRESS
> > +
> > +config HIBERNATION_INTERFACE
> > +       bool "Hibernation (aka 'suspend to disk')"
> > +       depends on SWAP
> > +       select HIBERNATION
> >        ---help---
> >          Enable the suspend to disk (STD) functionality, which is usually
> >          called "hibernation" in user interfaces.  STD checkpoints the
> > diff --git a/kernel/power/hibernate.c b/kernel/power/hibernate.c
> > index 1832bd2..13bcf69 100644
> > --- a/kernel/power/hibernate.c
> > +++ b/kernel/power/hibernate.c
> > @@ -592,6 +592,7 @@ static int prepare_processes(void)
> >  *     hibernate - The granpappy of the built-in hibernation management
> >  */
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_HIBERNATION_INTERFACE
> >  int hibernate(void)
> >  {
> >        int error;
> > @@ -667,6 +668,8 @@ int hibernate(void)
> >        return error;
> >  }
> >
> > +#else /* !CONFIG_HIBERNATION_INTERFACE */
> > +int hibernate(void) { return -ENOSYS; }
> >
> >  /**
> >  *     software_resume - Resume from a saved image.
> > @@ -1029,3 +1032,4 @@ __setup("noresume", noresume_setup);
> >  __setup("resume_offset=", resume_offset_setup);
> >  __setup("resume=", resume_setup);
> >  __setup("hibernate=", hibernate_setup);
> > +#endif /* !CONFIG_HIBERNATION_INTERFACE */
> > diff --git a/kernel/power/main.c b/kernel/power/main.c
> > index 8eaba5f..686a130 100644
> > --- a/kernel/power/main.c
> > +++ b/kernel/power/main.c
> > @@ -156,7 +156,7 @@ static ssize_t state_show(struct kobject *kobj, struct 
> > kobj_attribute *attr,
> >                        s += sprintf(s,"%s ", pm_states[i]);
> >        }
> >  #endif
> > -#ifdef CONFIG_HIBERNATION
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_HIBERNATION_INTERFACE
> >        s += sprintf(s, "%s\n", "disk");
> >  #else
> >        if (s != buf)
> > diff --git a/kernel/power/user.c b/kernel/power/user.c
> > index c36c3b9..5f36ee7 100644
> > --- a/kernel/power/user.c
> > +++ b/kernel/power/user.c
> > @@ -458,6 +458,7 @@ static long snapshot_ioctl(struct file *filp, unsigned 
> > int cmd,
> >        return error;
> >  }
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_HIBERNATION_INTERFACE
> >  static const struct file_operations snapshot_fops = {
> >        .open = snapshot_open,
> >        .release = snapshot_release,
> > @@ -479,3 +480,4 @@ static int __init snapshot_device_init(void)
> >  };
> >
> >  device_initcall(snapshot_device_init);
> > +#endif /* CONFIG_HIBERNATION_INTERFACE */
> > --
> > 1.7.0.4
> >
> >
> 
> Rafael, do you have any objections to this patch?

Actually, I do.  Please see the comments I've just sent in a reply to the
patch itself.

> As discussed earlier
> http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2011-03/msg00267.html
> these patches are against a merged tree (your linux-next and stefano's
> linux-next).
> Konrad would pull this tree into his branch and push it in the end
> (after your & stefano's trees
> have gone in).
> 
> Alternatively, if you would like to carry patches 3/5 and 4/5 directly
> in your tree, then the other
> patches could go into the xen tree.

I'd prefer that, once 4/5 has been modified as requested.

Thanks,
Rafael

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