On Thu 2009-05-07 20:57:44, Fabio Comolli wrote: > On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 8:22 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thursday 07 May 2009, Matt Price wrote: > >> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > On Thursday 07 May 2009, U Kuehn wrote: > >> >> Pavel Machek wrote: > >> >> >> T > >> > Also, as you can see from my previous message, I'm not a big fan of fighting > >> > over this once again. Lets try to work together to do something productive > >> > instead, shall we? > >> > > >> > >> thank you rafael. i would really like to see the fighting stop, too. > >> Perhaps the best palce to start would be to look directly at the > >> patches and, if there are weaknesses, discuss how to improve them? > > > > Yes, I've talked about that already with Nigel and there's a kind of a plan. > > > > Well, if I may jump in I suggest you start with the full-memory image > functionality. This is in my opinion the biggest advantage in tuxonice > vs. uswsusp. Neither tuxonice nor swsusp can write full-memory image (it is mostly impossible to do in unlikely case of all memory is consumed by kmalloc). Now, tuxonice can produce bigger images than swsusp... Rafael had short patch for similar efect some time ago, but we could not find anyone to really review it... Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
