Hi. On Thursday 06 July 2006 10:11, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > This patch doesn't look right to me. After it is applied, the user will > > have no way of saying that they don't want to resume (noresume). I assume > > the removal of resume= isn't a problem because you're expecting them to > > use that other undocumented way of setting resume= that Pavel mentioned a > > while ago? > > Yes, they have. The handing of resume= and noresume are now done in > kinit; resume is invoked from userspace by direct command only. Ah. So it's still valid to have resume= and noresume on the commandline, and klibc greps /proc/cmdline? So, for Suspend2, would I be ok just leaving people to add the echo > /proc/suspend2/do_resume, as we currently do for initrds and initramfses? > There is nothing undocumented about it. Ok. I guess my memory is stale :). Regards, Nigel -- Nigel, Michelle and Alisdair Cunningham 5 Mitchell Street Cobden 3266 Victoria, Australia
Attachment:
pgpErCczyz5Go.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [klibc 30/31] Remove in-kernel resume-from-disk invocation code
- From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>
- Re: [klibc 30/31] Remove in-kernel resume-from-disk invocation code
- References:
- Re: [klibc 30/31] Remove in-kernel resume-from-disk invocation code
- From: Nigel Cunningham <[email protected]>
- Re: [klibc 30/31] Remove in-kernel resume-from-disk invocation code
- From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>
- Re: [klibc 30/31] Remove in-kernel resume-from-disk invocation code
- Prev by Date: Re: 2.6.17-mm2 hrtimer code wedges at boot?
- Next by Date: Blatant layering violations (was Re: ext4 features)
- Previous by thread: Re: [klibc 30/31] Remove in-kernel resume-from-disk invocation code
- Next by thread: Re: [klibc 30/31] Remove in-kernel resume-from-disk invocation code
- Index(es):
 |