On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 09:17:01AM +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote: > Quoting Dave Jones <davej redhat com>: > > >Most of the diff between in-kernel suspend and suspend2 is > >the bells & whistles like compression, splash screens, etc. > > If that were true, then vanilla suspend code would work on my notebook > but it would just be uglier and slower. However, it isn't just uglier > and slower, it also hangs my X consistently on resume. > > The internals of suspend2 are explained in the file > Documentation/power/internals.txt, once you apply the patch. I'm no > kernel hacker, but it looks like the algorithms for doing things have > been changed - it's not just spit and polish. Note I said 'most'. The fundamentals aren't that different. And as you noted, with a lot of suspend2 being moved to userspace, and upstream headed in the same direction, the delta between the two implementations should continue to shrink. > In conclusion, I wouldn't just dismiss suspend2 to as some redundant > patch. It makes many real systems actually suspend and resume, unlike > the vanilla code. I never dismissed it. But the end goal should be 'make vanilla work', not 'rely on patching a kernel every time an update comes out' or 'make alternative kernels available'. Dave -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
