Hi! > > 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. Actually we already have device_suspend() device_power_down() calls (badly missnamed, some people believe), so it is two phase for now for s2ram. s2disk is more complex... Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
