Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Subject | Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.) | Date | Wed, 8 Feb 2006 00:50:21 +0100 |
| |
Hi,
On Wednesday 08 February 2006 00:17, Nigel Cunningham wrote: }-- snip --{ > > It occured to me as soon as I sent the last email (don't you hate that!) > that I'd forgotten the original impetus: backwards compatibility. If all > of the methods of suspending can be started with > > "echo disk > /sys/power/state" > > , your backwards compatability issue that you expressed concern about > earlier in this discussion is addressed. So, I'm not sure that dropping the > idea is the right thing to do.
I'm not sure if the problem is real. If it turns out to be, it'll be solvable in a couple of sane ways, so I don't think we need to worry about it in advance.
I'd like the userland suspend to be an option and not a drop-in replacement of swsusp or suspend2, so IMO it can be started in a different way.
Greetings, Rafael - 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/
| |