Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 7 Feb 2006 10:23:56 +0100 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.) |
| |
Hi!
> > *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?
Well, for _users_ method seems to be clicking "suspend" in KDE. For more experienced users it is powersave -U. And you are already distributing script to do suspend... Just hook suspend2 to the same gui stuff distributions already use.
Besides what you described can't work for uswsusp. Pavel -- Web maintainer for suspend.sf.net (www.sf.net/projects/suspend) wanted... - 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/
| |