On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 12:01:11PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > I think that s4bios is nice to have. Its similar to S3 and easier to
> > > set up than swsusp... It would be nice to have it.
> >
> > for me:
> > pros:
> > -----
> > 1- it is really really more easier to implement than S4;
> > 2- we can even have it with 2.4 kernels (it seems that it work without
> > the need of freezing processes, but I suspect that this statement
> > is 'wrong' by nature).
> >
> > cons:
> > -----
> > 1- it is much slower (especially at save time) than your swsusp;
> > 2- end users must setup their systems (need to create a suspend partition,
> > or to keep a vfat partition as the really first one (/dev/hda1));
> > 3- we use a bios function. Actually, everything can happen...
> >
> > That why I prefer swsusp at this time, or any other implementation of S4 (I
> > think about an implementation of S4 via LKCD).
>
> Yes I think swsusp is better (long term), but it might be worth it to
> have S4bios, too. At least it has nice graphical task bars :-). Can
> you push the patch, or is it okay for me to try to get it merged?
>
Ok, ok. I will try to push the patch.
-- Ducrot Bruno http://www.poupinou.org Page profaissionelle http://toto.tu-me-saoules.com Haume page - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 15 2002 - 22:00:15 EST