Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: uswsusp history lesson

[Nigel Cunningham <ncunningham@linuxmail.org>]

Hi.

On Monday 10 July 2006 13:57, Jason Lunz wrote:
> ncunningham@linuxmail.org said:
> > If Suspend2 added code in a way that broke swsusp, I would agree. But
> > it=20 doesn't.
>
> That isn't true. I stopped using the suspend2 patches after they broke
> the in-kernel suspend twice in the last year, since 2.6.14 or so. (The
> first time I reported one of these bugs is here:
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.swsusp.general/3243)

The switch to using the swsusp lowlevel code was a bit bumpy, and I do admit 
that I broke swsusp from time to time, but these are the exceptions (as you 
say), and the general design is such that they should be coexist. I'll freely 
admit that I don't regularly test swsusp, but I'm also not reguarly changing 
things that should break it.

> Before I stopped using suspend2, there was a 6-8 month period where I
> could easily use both in-kernel swsusp and suspend2 on my laptop. I kept
> using suspend2 because it was faster, but I eventually stopped because
> it locked up the machine during suspend or crashed it during resume on
> one out of every 20-30 tries (and the crashes weren't in some driver
> - the backtrace always pointed down into the guts of suspend code).

Did you report them to the list? I try to be responsive (although, again, I 
don't always succeed to the extent that I'd like.

> In-kernel swsusp, on the other hand, aside from being slower, has never
> crashed or frozen the machine. The same is true of the new uswsusp code,
> which i'd say subjectively feels nearly as fast as suspend2 was, with
> both using lzf compression.

Yeah, being much simpler does have its advantages, and Rafael has done a good 
job with the uswsusp code. Hopefully I'll get to test it properly soon.

Regards,

Nigel
-- 
Nigel, Michelle and Alisdair Cunningham
5 Mitchell Street
Cobden 3266
Victoria, Australia

Attachment: pgpCG5PsihHcx.pgp
Description: PGP signature