Re: [Swsusp-devel] Re: swsusp problems [was Re: Your opinion on the merge?]

From: Michael Frank
Date: Wed Mar 24 2004 - 17:52:40 EST

May I request that you leave the authors headers intact when quoting. Thank you.

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 11:17:04 +0100, Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> wrote:

>>So why aren't you arguing against bootsplash too? That definitely
>>obscures such an error :> Of course we could argue that such an error
>>shouldn't happen and/or will be obvious via other means (assuming it
>>indicates hardware failure).
>Of course I *am* against bootsplash. Unfortunately I've probably lost
>that war already. But at least it is not in -linus tree (and that's
>what I use anyway) => I gave up with bootsplash-equivalents, as long
>as they don't come to linus.
>[And I believe Linus would shoot down bootsplash-like code, anyway.]

Why? Joe consumer wants it.

As to the ever growing size of the kernel, there could be a official addons/tools
tree with non-core functions maintained by a seperate maintainer. Things like
debuggers, profiling or (swsusp) debug support could go there as well...

Solution: Auto switch to non-swsusp VT on error showing the error message.

Hmm, at that point you loose context, like now you know what error
happened, but do not know at which phase of suspend. That's pretty bad

Right, Good idea! Just print always "ugly" swsusp context on a text VT - plus any
error messages - and switch over to this VT in printk when not in interrupt
context. 10 lines of code or so in printk ;)


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at