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

Regards,

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]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-02-07 02:11    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans