From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752154Ab1HQJNk (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Aug 2011 05:13:40 -0400 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:46765 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751187Ab1HQJNh (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Aug 2011 05:13:37 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Martin Schwidefsky Subject: Re: [patch 1/1] [PATCH] include storage keys in hibernation image. Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 11:15:21 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/3.1.0-rc2+; KDE/4.6.0; x86_64; ; ) Cc: linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Pavel Machek , Jiri Slaby References: <20110816141441.898339466@de.ibm.com> <201108161956.47434.rjw@sisk.pl> <20110817094347.3c106bd9@mschwide> In-Reply-To: <20110817094347.3c106bd9@mschwide> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201108171115.21607.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday, August 17, 2011, Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 19:56:47 +0200 > "Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote: > > > On Tuesday, August 16, 2011, Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > > > From: Martin Schwidefsky > > > > > > For s390 there is one additional byte associated with each page, > > > the storage key. This byte contains the referenced and changed > > > bits and needs to be included into the hibernation image. > > > If the storage keys are not restored to their previous state all > > > original pages would appear to be dirty. This can cause > > > inconsistencies e.g. with read-only filesystems. > > > > > > Cc: Pavel Machek > > > Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki > > > Cc: Jiri Slaby > > > Cc: linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org > > > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > > Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org > > > Signed-off-by: Martin Schwidefsky > > > > OK, I don't have any complaints. Do you want me to take this > > patch or do you want to push it through the s390 tree? > > The patch affects the common power management code. At minimum I > would like an acked-by to take it into the s390 tree. I would feel > more comfortable if you'd take it via the power management tree > though. OK, I will. Expect it to appear in 3.2. :-) Thanks, Rafael