lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Mar]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]   [less markup]   [headers]   [forward]  
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateFri, 26 Mar 2004 13:59:55 +0800
From"Michael Frank" <>
SubjectRe: swsusp is not reliable. Face it. [was Re: [Swsusp-devel] Re: swsusp problems]
You forgot to leave the header ;)

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 23:13:48 +0100, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote:

>
>> Suspend is a mechanism to suspend the system transparently and
>> _NOT_EVER_ impairing the system. There can be NO_COMPROMISE and
>> NO_EXCUSE. I walk out of my office suspending the machine and resuming it
>> in front of my client it can't ever fail, or am I an idiot to advocate
>> linux?
>>
>> If I would be willing to accept failure I would not spend my time here and
>> utilize M$'s  incarnation of an architectural idiocy.
>
> You are wrong.
>
> swsusp1 fails your test, swsusp2 fails your test, and pmdisk fails it,
> too. If half of memory is used by kmalloc(), there's no sane way to
> make suspend-to-disk working. And swsusp[12] does not. Granted, half
> of memory kmalloc-ed is unusual situation, but it can theoreticaly
> happen. Try mem=8M or something.

No, I am not!

mem=8M won't boot into a usable system. mem=~11M will not suspend and
swsusp2 will exit gracefully and this is tested.

So swsusp2 does _not_ fail. You still have a usable system instead of a
paniced system you seem to like to accept.

Regards
Michael
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:01    [W:0.655 / U:0.040 seconds]
©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans