On Tuesday, 17 July 2007 09:26, Joseph Fannin wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 11:42:08PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Joseph Fannin wrote:
>
> > >root is free to "dd if=/dev/random of=/dev/mem". Root owned
> > >daemons which do bad things are bugs.
> >
> > in this
On Tuesday, 17 July 2007 09:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Joseph Fannin wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 11:42:08PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Joseph Fannin wrote:
> >
> >>> root is free to "dd if=/dev/random of=/dev/mem". Root owned
> >>>
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Joseph Fannin wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 11:42:08PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Joseph Fannin wrote:
root is free to "dd if=/dev/random of=/dev/mem". Root owned
daemons which do bad things are bugs.
in this case it would be more like
dd
On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 11:42:08PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Joseph Fannin wrote:
> >root is free to "dd if=/dev/random of=/dev/mem". Root owned
> >daemons which do bad things are bugs.
>
> in this case it would be more like
>
> dd if=/block0 of=/dev/sda1 count=1
Am Dienstag 17 Juli 2007 schrieb Joseph Fannin:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 07:44:07AM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> >
> > If yoi want to go the kexec route to hibernation, the dumping kernel
> > would need to mount the filesystem to write to a file. Therefore the
> > suspending kernel would need to
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Joseph Fannin wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 07:44:07AM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
If yoi want to go the kexec route to hibernation, the dumping kernel
would need to mount the filesystem to write to a file. Therefore the
suspending kernel would need to sync to disk and
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 07:44:07AM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
>
> If yoi want to go the kexec route to hibernation, the dumping kernel
> would need to mount the filesystem to write to a file. Therefore the
> suspending kernel would need to sync to disk and lock that file.
If the file is
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 07:44:07AM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
If yoi want to go the kexec route to hibernation, the dumping kernel
would need to mount the filesystem to write to a file. Therefore the
suspending kernel would need to sync to disk and lock that file.
If the file is
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Joseph Fannin wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 07:44:07AM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
If yoi want to go the kexec route to hibernation, the dumping kernel
would need to mount the filesystem to write to a file. Therefore the
suspending kernel would need to sync to disk and
Am Dienstag 17 Juli 2007 schrieb Joseph Fannin:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 07:44:07AM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
If yoi want to go the kexec route to hibernation, the dumping kernel
would need to mount the filesystem to write to a file. Therefore the
suspending kernel would need to sync to
On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 11:42:08PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Joseph Fannin wrote:
root is free to dd if=/dev/random of=/dev/mem. Root owned
daemons which do bad things are bugs.
in this case it would be more like
dd if=/block0 of=/dev/sda1 count=1 bs=4096
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Joseph Fannin wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 11:42:08PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Joseph Fannin wrote:
root is free to dd if=/dev/random of=/dev/mem. Root owned
daemons which do bad things are bugs.
in this case it would be more like
dd
On Tuesday, 17 July 2007 09:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Joseph Fannin wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 11:42:08PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Joseph Fannin wrote:
root is free to dd if=/dev/random of=/dev/mem. Root owned
daemons which do
On Tuesday, 17 July 2007 09:26, Joseph Fannin wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 11:42:08PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Joseph Fannin wrote:
root is free to dd if=/dev/random of=/dev/mem. Root owned
daemons which do bad things are bugs.
in this case it would be
Am Dienstag 17 Juli 2007 schrieb Joseph Fannin:
> Why are all these workarounds preferred, instead of proper suspend
> support for swap files?
>
> IOW, what reasons are there to *not* support swap files, other than the
> hit-and-miss Linux suspend support?
If yoi want to go the kexec route to
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 10:35:22AM -0400, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joseph Fannin) writes:
>
> There is a very simple solution to this obscure problem: (if I
> understand correctly, you want to dual boot Mac OS X and Linux (and
> maybe also Windows?))
>
> use LVM, thus
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 10:35:22AM -0400, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joseph Fannin) writes:
There is a very simple solution to this obscure problem: (if I
understand correctly, you want to dual boot Mac OS X and Linux (and
maybe also Windows?))
use LVM, thus allowing
Am Dienstag 17 Juli 2007 schrieb Joseph Fannin:
Why are all these workarounds preferred, instead of proper suspend
support for swap files?
IOW, what reasons are there to *not* support swap files, other than the
hit-and-miss Linux suspend support?
If yoi want to go the kexec route to
On Sat, Jul 14, 2007 at 11:48:17AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, 14 July 2007 02:45, Joseph Fannin wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 11:30:50AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Friday, 13 July 2007 07:42, Joseph Fannin wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 08:06:43PM
On Sat, Jul 14, 2007 at 11:48:17AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, 14 July 2007 02:45, Joseph Fannin wrote:
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 11:30:50AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, 13 July 2007 07:42, Joseph Fannin wrote:
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 08:06:43PM -0700, [EMAIL
On Saturday, 14 July 2007 02:45, Joseph Fannin wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 11:30:50AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, 13 July 2007 07:42, Joseph Fannin wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 08:06:43PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki
On Saturday, 14 July 2007 02:45, Joseph Fannin wrote:
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 11:30:50AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, 13 July 2007 07:42, Joseph Fannin wrote:
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 08:06:43PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 11:30:50AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, 13 July 2007 07:42, Joseph Fannin wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 08:06:43PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > > > Plus we need to figure out how to avoid
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joseph Fannin) writes:
[snip]
> Intel Macs use GPT partition tables, which support a huge number
> of primary partitions, and so don't support secondary partitions.
> 32bit Windows does not support GPT, so PC-style MBR partition tables
> must also be used. GPT was designed
On Friday, 13 July 2007 07:42, Joseph Fannin wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 08:06:43PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > > Plus we need to figure out how to avoid corrupting filesystems and
> > > swap in use by the "old" kernel and its
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 11:27:41PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Joseph Fannin wrote:
>
> >On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 10:57:04PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Joseph Fannin wrote:
> >>
> >>the only justification I have heard for why the hibernate
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Joseph Fannin wrote:
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 10:57:04PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Joseph Fannin wrote:
the only justification I have heard for why the hibernate image must be
written to the swap partition is backwards compatibility (i.e., we've
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 10:57:04PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Joseph Fannin wrote:
>
> the only justification I have heard for why the hibernate image must be
> written to the swap partition is backwards compatibility (i.e., we've
> always done it that way)
>
> if you
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Joseph Fannin wrote:
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 01:42:48 -0400
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 08:06:43PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Plus we need to figure out how to avoid corrupting filesystems and
swap in use by the "old" kernel
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 10:57:04PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Joseph Fannin wrote:
the only justification I have heard for why the hibernate image must be
written to the swap partition is backwards compatibility (i.e., we've
always done it that way)
if you are
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Joseph Fannin wrote:
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 01:42:48 -0400
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 08:06:43PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Plus we need to figure out how to avoid corrupting filesystems and
swap in use by the old kernel
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Joseph Fannin wrote:
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 10:57:04PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Joseph Fannin wrote:
the only justification I have heard for why the hibernate image must be
written to the swap partition is backwards compatibility (i.e., we've
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 11:27:41PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Joseph Fannin wrote:
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 10:57:04PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Joseph Fannin wrote:
the only justification I have heard for why the hibernate image must be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joseph Fannin) writes:
[snip]
Intel Macs use GPT partition tables, which support a huge number
of primary partitions, and so don't support secondary partitions.
32bit Windows does not support GPT, so PC-style MBR partition tables
must also be used. GPT was designed to
On Friday, 13 July 2007 07:42, Joseph Fannin wrote:
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 08:06:43PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Plus we need to figure out how to avoid corrupting filesystems and
swap in use by the old kernel and its processes (hint:
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 11:30:50AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, 13 July 2007 07:42, Joseph Fannin wrote:
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 08:06:43PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Plus we need to figure out how to avoid corrupting
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 08:06:43PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Plus we need to figure out how to avoid corrupting filesystems and
> > swap in use by the "old" kernel and its processes (hint: a separate
> > "hibernation partition" is a
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 08:06:43PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Plus we need to figure out how to avoid corrupting filesystems and
swap in use by the old kernel and its processes (hint: a separate
hibernation partition is a no-go).
I
38 matches
Mail list logo
