On ?t 15-06-06 09:43:04, David Brownell wrote: > On Thursday 15 June 2006 1:39 am, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > Actually it would be interesting to hear counter-arguments to this > > > position: > > > > > > We already HAVE that two-phase thing going on, at > > > least for swsusp. In phase I a PM_EVENT_FREEZE > > > gets sent. Then in phase II a PM_EVENT_SUSPEND gets > > > tries to really suspend things. > > > > > > One counter-argument might be that "phase I.5 resumes those devices" > > > is a problem. Another might be that "FREEZE should not be sent to > > > the console(s), the swap device, or their parents". I suspect there > > > are a few more issues mixed up in there too. > > > > This is FAQ: > > Which seems to suggest that you are Frequently giving a useless > Answer to the Question ... and in this case, not the question > which was asked. Okay, so what is the question you are asking? > > Q: I do not understand why you have such strong objections to idea of > > selective suspend. > > Not a question, and it's not clear who "you" is. Presumably, "Pavel"? > Plus it doesn't relate to the position sketched above. Feel free to submit documentation patch. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
