On Fr, 14.09.18 10:45, mcatanzaro@xxxxxxxxx (mcatanzaro@xxxxxxxxx) wrote: > On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:16 AM, Ray Strode <rstrode@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > But that's bonkers, there's no way systemd can know either. > > The only way to make this reliable is if the kernel has a dedicated > > hibernate > > partition the same size as ram that doesn't get used for anything but > > hibernate, right? > > I think I agree with Ray... the Workstation kernel should not offer this at > all unless it can be made reliable. I tend to agree with this actually. I mean, I can understand why the GNOME folks don't want to expose an opt-in option for this, and want the lower layers to disable it. In fact I understand it so well, that I also would prefer if the lower layer from my own systemd PoV (i.e. the kernel) wouldn't offer us a feature that is known to be broken and unsupported. Hence, I think that Fedora kernels should really turn off hibernation support entirely during compilation if there's no intention to really support it. This could be done either by compiling out the whole subsystem's code for it, or maybe with a kernel patch that adds a kernel cmdline or so, that must be specified to enable this code in the kernel. For all other interfaces the kernel provides we assume that it works correctly if systemd can call into it. It *is* kinda weird if the hibernation APIs the kernel provides are made available but actually are not assumed to work properly. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ desktop mailing list -- desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to desktop-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
