[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
    Hi Pavel.

    On Tuesday 07 February 2006 10:44, Pavel Machek wrote:
    > Are you Max Dubois, second incarnation or what?
    > > Well, given that the kernel suspend is going to be kept for a while,
    > > wouldn't it be better if it was feature full? How would the users be
    > > at
    > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    > > a disadvantage if they had better kernel based suspend for a while,
    > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    > > followed by u-beaut-cooks-cleans-and-washes uswsusp? That's the part I
    > > don't get...
    > *Users* would not be at disadvantage, but, surprise, there's one thing
    > more important than users. Thats developers, and I can guarantee you
    > that merging 14K lines of code just to delete them half a year later
    > would drive them crazy.

    It would more be an ever-changing interface that would drive them crazy. So
    why don't we come up with an agreed method of starting a suspend and
    starting a resume that they can use, without worrying about whether
    they're getting swsusp, uswsusp or Suspend2? /sys/power/state seems the
    obvious choice for this. An additional /sys entry could perhaps be used to
    modify which implementation is used when you echo disk > /sys/power/state
    - something like

    # cat /sys/power/disk_method
    swsusp uswsusp suspend2
    # echo uswsusp > /sys/power/disk_method
    # echo > /sys/power/state

    Is there a big problem with that, which I've missed?



    See our web page for Howtos, FAQs, the Wiki and mailing list info. IRC: #suspend2 on Freenode
    [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
     \ /
      Last update: 2006-02-07 02:11    [W:0.025 / U:94.428 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site