Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 20 Feb 2006 11:56:17 +0100 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.) |
| |
On Po 20-02-06 10:47:28, Matthias Hensler wrote: > On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 01:53:33AM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Only feature I can't do is "save whole pagecache"... and 14000 lines > > of code for _that_ is a bit too much. I could probably patch my kernel > > to dump pagecache to userspace, but I do not think it is worth the > > effort. > > I do not think that Suspend 2 needs 14000 lines for that, the core is > much smaller. But besides, _not_ saving the pagecache is a really _bad_ > idea. I expect to have my system back after resume, in the same state I > had left it prior to suspend. I really do not like it how it is done by > Windows, it is just ugly to have a slowly responding system after > resume, because all caches and buffers are gone.
That's okay, swsusp already saves configurable ammount of pagecache.
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/
| |