From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756259AbYDQAyo (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:54:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753841AbYDQAyb (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:54:31 -0400 Received: from mail.tuxonice.net ([67.207.135.122]:54149 "EHLO mail.tuxonice.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753049AbYDQAya (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:54:30 -0400 X-Bogosity: Ham, spamicity=0.000000 Subject: Re: RFC: Self-snapshotting in Linux From: Nigel Cunningham Reply-To: nigel@nigel.suspend2.net To: Alan Jenkins Cc: Ben Nizette , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:55:23 +1000 Message-Id: <1208393723.6206.1.camel@nigel-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi. On Wed, 2008-04-16 at 03:27 -0700, Alan Jenkins wrote: > I guess there is the hardware / drivers issue. I would like to claim > I've found hibernation to be reliable but unfortunately that's not > 100% true. As you say, that's inherent to snapshotting on > unvirtualised hardware - calling it snapshotting instead of > hibernation wouldn't change anything. On a particular set of hardware, it should be possible to make it 100% reliable. If you've found bugs, please report them. We can only fix issues if we know they exist. Regards, Nigel