On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 05:22:38PM +0100, Stefan Seyfried wrote: > Yes, and i have written them down a thousand times. But nobody seems > interested :-) > > Basically the arguments are: > - you don't need storage for e.g. vbetool vbestate save > - it is less prone to race conditions (and it could be improved to make > them go away by locking the VT switching) > - less dependencies > - (not done yet): you could mlock() it, so that it actually resumes > machines that kill their harddrive during suspend, so that they are > more easily debugged.
And with pm-utils in its current state, that it trivially easy to do: * Modify the uswsusp module to use s2ram and remove the -f flag from s2both. * (optional) Arrange for s2ram and s2both to use the paramters passed from HAL and/or the user instead of their internal whitelist. * Delete 20video and 99video. * Profit. > But i am sure there are much more arguments on this mailinglist that show me > that i am totally wrong and not knowing what i am doing wrt. suspend to ram > :-) > > Have fun, > > Stefan > -- > Stefan Seyfried > R&D Team Mobile Devices | "Any ideas, John?" > SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Nürnberg | "Well, surrounding them's out." > > This footer brought to you by insane German lawmakers: > SUSE Linux Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) -- Victor Lowther Ubuntu Certified Professional _______________________________________________ Pm-utils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-utils
