From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 14365] New: resume from suspend to ram broken after suspend to disk Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 23:30:33 +0200 Message-ID: <200910102330.33297.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <20091010103905.7bc562c3.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:54307 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754911AbZJJV3d (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Oct 2009 17:29:33 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20091010103905.7bc562c3.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Andrew Morton Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Len Brown On Saturday 10 October 2009, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 13:40:45 GMT bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org wrote: > > > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14365 > > > > Summary: resume from suspend to ram broken after suspend to > > disk > > Product: Power Management > > Version: 2.5 > > Kernel Version: 2.6.31 > > Platform: All > > OS/Version: Linux > > Tree: Mainline > > Status: NEW > > Severity: normal > > Priority: P1 > > Component: Hibernation/Suspend > > AssignedTo: power-management_other@kernel-bugs.osdl.org > > ReportedBy: corsac@debian.org > > Regression: No > > It worries me that we have both "Power management, Hibernation/Suspend" > and acpi-power-sleep-wake. > > Are these duplicative? acpi-power-sleep-wake is more specific. Hibernation/Suspend bugs need not be. about ACPI. > Should we kill one off? I don't think that's necessary. > Do the acpi developers monitor the "Power Management" category? Yes, they do, to my knowledge.