On Mon 2009-05-25 19:27:46, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > Hi. > > On Sat, 2009-05-09 at 15:58 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > > > Instead of new features I would rather see more effort being put into making > > > > the _core_ TuxOnIce (I mean patch #8 here) smaller (8 KLOC is still a lot, > > > > just to put things into the right perspective the current in-kernel content > > > > of kernel/power/ is 5.5 KLOC) and with more documentation inside the code. > > > > > > Yeah, but those 2.5k extra lines get you more reliability and extra > > > functionality. They're not fat. > > > > If you know about reliability problems in swsusp, please fix them in > > separate patch. Hiding the fixes in 8KLOC patch is not nice. > > I'm going to try to. Unfortunately, they'll require what's basically a > group-up redesign of the basic algorithm, because to get maximum > reliability, you need to carefully account for the amount of storage > you're going to need and the amount of memory you have available, and > 'prepare' the image prior to doing the atomic copy. I don't quite get it; why is that needed? If there's not enough swap available, swsusp should freeze, realize there's no swap, unfreeze and continue. I do not see reliability problem there. If there are some problems like "it crashes during suspend or resume" or "suspend succeeds but fails to resume", we'd like to fix those with priority... 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
