On Tuesday 15 August 2006 00:29, Laurent Riffard wrote: > Le 14.08.2006 23:37, Rafael J. Wysocki a écrit : > > On Monday 14 August 2006 23:25, Laurent Riffard wrote: > >> Le 14.08.2006 22:50, Rafael J. Wysocki a écrit : > >>> On Monday 14 August 2006 22:03, Laurent Riffard wrote: > >>>> Le 14.08.2006 21:16, Rafael J. Wysocki a écrit : > >>>>> On Monday 14 August 2006 19:48, Laurent Riffard wrote: > >>>>>> Le 14.08.2006 19:30, Rafael J. Wysocki a écrit : > > ]--snip--[ > >>>> Does it mean it was mistaken on swap device ? > >>> Yes. If your resume device is not the first swap, it won't work without > >>> the patch. > >> Ok, that's why I had that strange behaviour: > >> - 2 swap devices online, suspend to second one: suspend works. > >> - on resume, it can't find suspend signature on the 2nd swap device, so > >> it continue with normal boot, fsck all FS and say something like "swapon: > >> 1st swap device busy". I had to mkswap it. > >> > >> I was thinking that my initrd script was broken or I was mistyping the resume > >> device name in GRUB. Was funny... > > > > Sorry for that. > > > > This is not related to the BUG you've reported, but could you please try to > > suspend using the second swap as your resume partition with a patched kernel, > > just to make sure the patch works? I have no boxes with two swaps to verify > > this ... > > It seems to always suspend to the first swap device, despite your patch. Strange. Well, thanks for testing! Rafael -- You never change things by fighting the existing reality. R. Buckminster Fuller
