On Po 06-02-06 22:17:04, Lee Revell wrote: > On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 22:01 -0500, Jim Crilly wrote: > > With uswsusp it'll be more flexible in that you'll be able to use any > > userland process or library to transform the image before storing it, but > > the suspend and resume processes are going to be a lot more complicated. > > For instance, how are you going to tell the kernel that you need the > > uswsusp UI binary, /bin/gzip and /usr/bin/gpg to run after the rest of > > userland has been frozen? > > Unless someone at least gives a rough estimate of 1) what % of users > can't suspend their laptops now and 2) of these, what % are helped by > suspend2, this thread is just handwaving... and 3) for what % of users, suspend2 will actually break it (bugs happen). Anyway it seems to be something like 1) 90% 2) 1% 3) .5% Pavel -- Web maintainer for suspend.sf.net (www.sf.net/projects/suspend) wanted... - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
- From: Nigel Cunningham <[email protected]>
- Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
- From: Nigel Cunningham <[email protected]>
- Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
- From: Lee Revell <[email protected]>
- Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
- References:
- [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.
- From: Nigel Cunningham <[email protected]>
- Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
- From: Lee Revell <[email protected]>
- Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
- From: Nigel Cunningham <[email protected]>
- Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
- From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[email protected]>
- Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
- From: "Jim Crilly" <[email protected]>
- Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
- From: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>
- Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
- From: "Jim Crilly" <[email protected]>
- Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
- From: Lee Revell <[email protected]>
- Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
- From: Jim Crilly <[email protected]>
- Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
- From: Lee Revell <[email protected]>
- [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] compat: add compat functions for *at syscalls
- Next by Date: Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
- Previous by thread: Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
- Next by thread: Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
- Index(es):