Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: swsusp / suspend2 reliability

[Bojan Smojver]

On Sat, 2006-07-08 at 01:25 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:

> You can either use suspend2 (14000 lines of unreviewed kernel code,
> old) or uswsusp (~500 lines of reviewed kernel code, ~2000 lines of
> unreviewed userspace code, new).
> 
> Of course, you can also use swsusp (~2000 lines of reviewed kernel
> code, pretty old) if stability matters to you more than graphical
> progress bar.

I've been using Suspend2 on my notebook for a long, long time now and
the code is not unstable. In fact, I never reboot my system unless there
is a kernel upgrade from Fedora. And I do suspend/resume many times
every day, sometimes on AC power, sometimes on battery. And I never lost
one bit of information on my file system as a result of Suspend2 stuff
up.

Also, Suspend2 can do many things that neither swsusp or even uswsusp
can do, like suspending to regular files, swap files or combination of
swap, swapfiles and regular files. It is also *much* faster than swsusp,
to the point that it takes less time to resume *full* image of memory
with Suspend2 than it takes half memory with swsusp. It easy to confuse
people by comparing apples and oranges, so let's not do that.

So, the code may be "unreviewed", but it is sure field tested. And by
many, not just me.

-- 
Bojan

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/