Messages in this thread | | | From | Jason Lunz <> | Subject | Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: uswsusp history lesson | Date | Mon, 10 Jul 2006 03:57:21 +0000 (UTC) |
| |
ncunningham@linuxmail.org said: > If Suspend2 added code in a way that broke swsusp, I would agree. But it=20 > doesn't.
That isn't true. I stopped using the suspend2 patches after they broke the in-kernel suspend twice in the last year, since 2.6.14 or so. (The first time I reported one of these bugs is here: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.swsusp.general/3243)
Before I stopped using suspend2, there was a 6-8 month period where I could easily use both in-kernel swsusp and suspend2 on my laptop. I kept using suspend2 because it was faster, but I eventually stopped because it locked up the machine during suspend or crashed it during resume on one out of every 20-30 tries (and the crashes weren't in some driver - the backtrace always pointed down into the guts of suspend code).
In-kernel swsusp, on the other hand, aside from being slower, has never crashed or frozen the machine. The same is true of the new uswsusp code, which i'd say subjectively feels nearly as fast as suspend2 was, with both using lzf compression.
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/
| |