On Wednesday, 22 August 2007 10:28, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Since we already pass the address of restore_registers() in the image > > header, > > we can also pass the value of the CR3 register from before the hibernation > > in > > the same way. This will allow us to avoid using init_level4_pgt page tables > > during the restore. > > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > @@ -253,10 +262,13 @@ int arch_hibernation_header_save(void *a > > { > > struct restore_data_record *rdr = addr; > > > > - if (max_size < sizeof(struct restore_data_record)) > > + if (max_size < sizeof(*rdr)) > > return -EOVERFLOW; > > rdr->jump_address = restore_jump_address; > > - rdr->control = (restore_jump_address ^ RESTORE_MAGIC); > > + rdr->cr3 = restore_cr3; > > + rdr->magic = RESTORE_MAGIC; > > + rdr->crc = 0; > > + rdr->crc = crc32_le(0, addr, sizeof(*rdr)); > > return 0; > > } > > No, I do not think I like that. I believe both -> control and -> crc > is just useless paranoia. Bitflip in this area is not going to be any > worse than bitflip anywhere else, we should not pretend this is > somehow "more important". > > -> control should really be "protocol version"... probably should > contain some field that is easy to increment.
OK Perhaps I'll just remove the crc field. What do you think? Rafael - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/