Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 11 Jul 2006 10:47:44 -0400 | From | Jason Lunz <> | Subject | Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: uswsusp history lesson |
| |
On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 04:20:30PM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > The switch to using the swsusp lowlevel code was a bit bumpy, and I do admit > that I broke swsusp from time to time, but these are the exceptions (as you > say), and the general design is such that they should be coexist. I'll freely > admit that I don't regularly test swsusp, but I'm also not reguarly changing > things that should break it.
I would suggest testing swsusp before each suspend2 release. It's not difficult at all to maintain a system that can suspend to disk using either method, especially if you use something like Bernard's hibernate scripts.
I would say that's especially important if you're posting the patches for inclusion in mainline. It's simply not acceptible to merge patches that break working in-kernel setups.
> Did you report them to the list? I try to be responsive (although, again, I > don't always succeed to the extent that I'd like.
Unfortunately, no. Because of the intermittency of the crashes, I was usually on the road or in the middle of something else when a crash happened, so I never captured any of the backtraces.
Jason - 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/
| |