Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)

[Nigel Cunningham <nigel@suspend2.net>]

Hi Pavel.

On Tuesday 07 February 2006 10:44, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Are you Max Dubois, second incarnation or what?
>
> > Well, given that the kernel suspend is going to be kept for a while,
> > wouldn't it be better if it was feature full? How would the users be
> > at
>
>                                                
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> > a disadvantage if they had better kernel based suspend for a while,
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> > followed by u-beaut-cooks-cleans-and-washes uswsusp? That's the part I
> > don't get...
>
> *Users* would not be at disadvantage, but, surprise, there's one thing
> more important than users. Thats developers, and I can guarantee you
> that merging 14K lines of code just to delete them half a year later
> would drive them crazy.

It would more be an ever-changing interface that would drive them crazy. So 
why don't we come up with an agreed method of starting a suspend and 
starting a resume that they can use, without worrying about whether 
they're getting swsusp, uswsusp or Suspend2? /sys/power/state seems the 
obvious choice for this. An additional /sys entry could perhaps be used to 
modify which implementation is used when you echo disk > /sys/power/state 
- something like

# cat /sys/power/disk_method
swsusp uswsusp suspend2
# echo uswsusp > /sys/power/disk_method
# echo > /sys/power/state

Is there a big problem with that, which I've missed?

Regards,

Nigel

-- 
See our web page for Howtos, FAQs, the Wiki and mailing list info.
http://www.suspend2.net                IRC: #suspend2 on Freenode

Attachment: pgpbkE9SSrKxk.pgp
Description: PGP signature