On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 04:20:30PM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> 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.
I would suggest testing swsusp before each suspend2 release. It's not
difficult at all to maintain a system that can suspend to disk using
either method, especially if you use something like Bernard's hibernate
scripts.
I would say that's especially important if you're posting the patches
for inclusion in mainline. It's simply not acceptible to merge patches
that break working in-kernel setups.
> 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.
Unfortunately, no. Because of the intermittency of the crashes, I was
usually on the road or in the middle of something else when a crash
happened, so I never captured any of the backtraces.
Jason
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
