lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Oct]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [swsusp] separate snapshot functionality to separate file
    Pavel Machek wrote:
    >> Pavel, at the PM summit, we agreed to work toward getting Suspend2
    >> merged. I've been working since then on cleaning up the code, splitting
    >> the patches up nicely and so on. In the meantime, you seem to have gone
    >> off on a completely different tangent, going right against what we
    >> agreed then.
    > Sorry about that. At pm summit, I did not know if uswsusp was
    > feasible. Now I'm pretty sure it is (code works and is stable).

    Ok, excuse me for butting in.

    I would just like to give the point of view of a user.

    I have been using suspend2 probably at least once a day for about a year
    now, and I love it. I have had zero cases of data corruption, and it's
    fast, effective, and reliable. I can't say the same about the in-kernel
    swsusp. When I tried it (once), a few months ago:

    - It was dog slow because it doesn't use compression
    - Even though it's dog slow, it doesn't save all RAM
    - Therefore the machine is dog slow after resume
    - It doesn't have a decent UI
    - There is no way to abort suspend once it's started. (Whatever others
    may say, this /is/ useful, especially when you've forgotten something
    and you're in a hurry and don't have two more minutes to waste waiting
    for a suspend/resume cycle.)

    These points /do/ matter to users: after all, if we all had time to
    waste we'd never use suspend or S3, we'd just reboot all the time...

    I have been waiting for swsusp2 to be merged ever since I started using
    it. When I read about the discussion at the PM summit, I hoped that this
    would finally happen. Now I see that it's not, and instead work is going
    to continue on what is - or at least seemed to be when I tried it - an
    inferior implementation. From my point of view as a user, this seems
    silly. There may be all the technical reasons in the world to dislike
    suspend2; on these, I defer to everyone else, since I'm no kernel
    hacker. But from the point of view of a user, well, suspend2 is much better.

    So, instead of working on getting swsusp, which is still far behind in
    terms of functionality, up to the level of suspend2, why not work
    together on merging swsusp2, which is fast, stable and provides what
    users want and need?


    Cheers,
    Lorenzo

    --
    http://www.colitti.com/lorenzo/
    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-10-05 23:23    [W:3.350 / U:0.340 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site