Suspend2 isn't invasive.

[Hervé Fache]

As I said before on this list, one cannot judge suspend2 vs swsusp
until they try both, and I did. I started up with a biased stance
towards sticking to Linus' tree, but once you've tasted suspend2 it's
hard to go back to black screens and no info.

I do believe people that tell me both use the same kernel resources,
but it's quite obvious that they use them in different ways. On
Dapper, I used to get the suspend2 kernels from Dagobah, and my work
machine was hibernated every night. It could not hibernate with stock
kernels. Neither could my wife's laptop until Suspend2.

My old laptop (small RAM small swap) could also hibernate with
suspend2 thanks to image compression, and the speed was quite good (a
few seconds).

I quite understand that Ben Collins has got more than his share of
work with the kernel, so I can understand a technical choice and do
not complain (please fix that KT400 bug ;-), but please don't tell us
swsusp is the same as Suspend2, because it would be the same a saying
an old VW Beatle is the same as a Merc.

Hervé.

On 12/1/06, Nigel Cunningham <nigel at suspend2.net> wrote:
> Hi Ben.
>
> On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 15:16 -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 17:15 +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > Sorry for not continuing the existing thread, but I've only just
> > > subscribed, after seeing Ben's assertion.
> > >
> > > Suspend2 isn't normally an invasive patch. At the moment it's a little
> > > more invasive because I'm carrying the addition of linux/freezer.h that
> > > will go into Linus' tree shortly, so let me prove a diffstat from 2.2.8.
> >
> > Your definition of invasive and mine are two different things.
> >
> > Mine includes things like integrating fixes from your code into a tree
> > that has an existing suspend2 patch applied. So incremental patching is
> > required, and this increases the amount of merging I have to do (even if
> > it's not a conflict, it creates merges when I sync with Linus).
>
> If you have fixes, please give them to me and I'll include them
> immediately. Matt doesn't seem to be aware of it, but I'm maintaining a
> Suspend2-against-Ubuntu branch on git.kernel.org, as well as one against
> Linus' tree. These are normally updated on a daily basis, but I've been
> a bit behind this week due to doing a milking course.
>
> > My statement wasn't a stab at suspend2, as much as it was a declaration
> > about our development criteria. The major point being that I like to
> > keep changes to stock kernel code to a bare minimum, unless it is
> > required. Since suspend2 cannot meet this criteria, and it's benefit
> > does not outweigh that, I wont include it.
>
> Understood. I would think that the benefits would far outweigh not
> having it - could we perhaps discuss that side some more?
>
> Regards,
>
> Nigel
>
>
> --
> ubuntu-devel mailing list
> ubuntu-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
>