lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
    Date
    Hi.

    On Monday 20 February 2006 20:56, Pavel Machek wrote:
    > 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.

    Really? How is it configured?

    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]
    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2006-02-20 12:46    [W:0.019 / U:0.428 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site