On Thu, 15 Jun 2006, Pavel Machek wrote: > On St 14-06-06 15:59:00, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > There is no "console device". > > > > There are potentially _many_ console devices. > > With printks going to all of them? Yup. > My point is that you really want the console enabled in writing phase > of suspend-to-disk. And old setup got that detail right, while new > setup does not. I definitely agree that we can change things around a bit. I don't personally use suspend-to-disk, and I'm a bit tired of having people tell me STD works, when STR is what I have always cared about, so if the tables are turned for once, I won't be _too_ sorry. I have always argued that the suspend should be a two-phase thing: a "prepare to suspend" (that saves the device state) and then a "real suspend" (that actually turns off devices). _I_ think that's the only sane schenario, and I think that in that schenario we could save the image to disk in between, and disable the console after that, and just before the "actually turn off devices" phase. But I've said that before, and nobody cared last time either. For some reason, people continue to think that suspend should be a single phase, with us sending down "suspend" to each device. And quite frankly, until we do it the way I say we should do it, I don't think you can _ever_ do things well. For example, the whole thing where we have hacks to try to avoid suspending the device that is the disk to suspend to all comes from this same problem. Linus
