Messages in this thread |  | | | From | Nigel Cunningham <> | | Subject | Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.) | | Date | Mon, 20 Feb 2006 21:04:22 +1000 |
| |
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] |  |