Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 3 Feb 2006 12:21:30 +0100 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support. |
| |
On Čt 02-02-06 13:27:08, Andrew Morton wrote: > Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote: > > Random thoughts: > > - swsusp has been a multi-year ongoing source of churn and bug reports. > It hasn't been a big success and we have a way to go yet.
You don't get the success reports, only bug reports. It tends to work these days. I don't get success reports, too, but I'm not flooded with bugreports for distribution, either. (And actually see people using suspend2/swsusp).
> - People seem to be doing too much development on the swsusp core and not > enough development out where the actual problems are: drivers which don't > suspend and resume correctly.
We only started developing swsusp core again at 11/2005. Problem with drivers is that I mostly do not have affected hardware. [Okay, there are some problems with Core Duo I can reproduce here, smp-only, but the machine is flakey, anyway, so it will take some time.]
> - If you want my cheerfully uninformed opinion, we should toss both of > them out and implement suspend3, which is based on the kexec/kdump > infrastructure. There's so much duplication of intent here that it's not > funny. And having them separate like this weakens both in the area where > the real problems are: drivers.
I thought about it (at around 11/2005), but loosing 8+ MB of ram, permanently, is perhaps too big price to pay? Pavel -- Thanks, Sharp! - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |