From owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jan 31 17:10:17 2012
Return-Path: <owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: svn-src-head@freebsd.org
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6397106564A;
	Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:10:17 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from jkim@FreeBSD.org)
From: Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org>
To: Gavin Atkinson <gavin@freebsd.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:10:06 -0500
User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2
References: <201201301828.q0UISvhb097256@svn.freebsd.org>
	<1328015602.96718.19.camel@buffy.york.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <1328015602.96718.19.camel@buffy.york.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201201311210.09506.jkim@FreeBSD.org>
Cc: "svn-src-head@freebsd.org" <svn-src-head@freebsd.org>,
	"svn-src-all@freebsd.org" <svn-src-all@freebsd.org>,
	"src-committers@freebsd.org" <src-committers@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: svn commit: r230777 - head/sys/amd64/acpica
X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current
	<svn-src-head.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head>,
	<mailto:svn-src-head-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-src-head>
List-Post: <mailto:svn-src-head@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:svn-src-head-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head>,
	<mailto:svn-src-head-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:10:17 -0000

On Tuesday 31 January 2012 08:13 am, Gavin Atkinson wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 18:28 +0000, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
> > Author: jkim
> > Date: Mon Jan 30 18:28:56 2012
> > New Revision: 230777
> > URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/230777
> >
> > Log:
> >   Naturally align a newly added wakeup_fpusave.
>
> I hadn't noticed this change when it went in initially.  Out of
> interest, is the save/restore of the FPU state over suspend/resume
> likely to fix the panics some people see over a suspend/resume if
> they have run VirtualBox or similar before suspend?  I've been
> assuming that it was related to some CPU state not being
> saved/restored, but never dug into it myself.

I am actually not sure but FPU state won't be problem.  Probably 
VirtualBox device drivers don't implement suspend/resume methods.

In fact, something broke suspend/resume for my desktop recently but I 
don't have enough free time to dig into it myself. :-(

Jung-uk Kim