Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: uswsusp history lesson

[Jason Lunz]

On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 04:20:30PM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> The switch to using the swsusp lowlevel code was a bit bumpy, and I do admit 
> that I broke swsusp from time to time, but these are the exceptions (as you 
> say), and the general design is such that they should be coexist. I'll freely 
> admit that I don't regularly test swsusp, but I'm also not reguarly changing 
> things that should break it.

I would suggest testing swsusp before each suspend2 release. It's not
difficult at all to maintain a system that can suspend to disk using
either method, especially if you use something like Bernard's hibernate
scripts.

I would say that's especially important if you're posting the patches
for inclusion in mainline. It's simply not acceptible to merge patches
that break working in-kernel setups.

> Did you report them to the list? I try to be responsive (although, again, I 
> don't always succeed to the extent that I'd like.

Unfortunately, no. Because of the intermittency of the crashes, I was
usually on the road or in the middle of something else when a crash
happened, so I never captured any of the backtraces.

Jason
-
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/