Messages in this thread | | | From | Nigel Cunningham <> | Subject | Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.) | Date | Tue, 7 Feb 2006 11:05:41 +1000 |
| |
Hi Pavel.
On Tuesday 07 February 2006 10:44, Pavel Machek wrote: > Are you Max Dubois, second incarnation or what? > > > Well, given that the kernel suspend is going to be kept for a while, > > wouldn't it be better if it was feature full? How would the users be > > at > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > a disadvantage if they had better kernel based suspend for a while, > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > followed by u-beaut-cooks-cleans-and-washes uswsusp? That's the part I > > don't get... > > *Users* would not be at disadvantage, but, surprise, there's one thing > more important than users. Thats developers, and I can guarantee you > that merging 14K lines of code just to delete them half a year later > would drive them crazy.
It would more be an ever-changing interface that would drive them crazy. So why don't we come up with an agreed method of starting a suspend and starting a resume that they can use, without worrying about whether they're getting swsusp, uswsusp or Suspend2? /sys/power/state seems the obvious choice for this. An additional /sys entry could perhaps be used to modify which implementation is used when you echo disk > /sys/power/state - something like
# cat /sys/power/disk_method swsusp uswsusp suspend2 # echo uswsusp > /sys/power/disk_method # echo > /sys/power/state
Is there a big problem with that, which I've missed?
Regards,
Nigel
-- See our web page for Howtos, FAQs, the Wiki and mailing list info. http://www.suspend2.net IRC: #suspend2 on Freenode [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |