On Sat, 2006-07-08 at 15:19 +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > so they're almost the same conceptually... That's even more reason to go > for one unified approach. I couldn't agree more. Of course, we should have a better of the two in-kernel implementations: Suspend2. But that's the problem - it's not going to happen. -- Bojan - 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/
- References:
- Re: swsusp / suspend2 reliability
- From: Olivier Galibert <[email protected]>
- Re: swsusp / suspend2 reliability
- From: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>
- Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: swsusp / suspend2 reliability
- From: Nigel Cunningham <[email protected]>
- uswsusp history lesson [was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: swsusp / suspend2 reliability]
- From: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>
- Re: uswsusp history lesson
- From: Jan Rychter <[email protected]>
- Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: uswsusp history lesson
- From: Bojan Smojver <[email protected]>
- Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: uswsusp history lesson
- From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
- Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: uswsusp history lesson
- From: Bojan Smojver <[email protected]>
- Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: uswsusp history lesson
- From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
- Re: swsusp / suspend2 reliability
- Prev by Date: Re: uswsusp history lesson [was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: swsusp / suspend2 reliability]
- Next by Date: Re: uswsusp history lesson [was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: swsusp / suspend2 reliability]
- Previous by thread: Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: uswsusp history lesson
- Next by thread: Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: uswsusp history lesson
- Index(es):
 |