From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Olivier Galibert <galibert@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [RFC] userland swsusp
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 17:54:37 +0100
Message-ID: <20051117165437.GA10402@dspnet.fr.eu.org>
References: <F760B14C9561B941B89469F59BA3A8470BDD12EB@orsmsx401.amr.corp.intel.com> <20051116191051.GG2193@spitz.ucw.cz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner+glk-linux-kernel-3=40m.gmane.org-S932357AbVKQQyz@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20051116191051.GG2193@spitz.ucw.cz>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Linux-pm mailing list <linux-pm@lists.osdl.org>
List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 07:10:52PM +0000, Pavel Machek wrote:
> What unstable implementation? swsusp had very little regressions over past
> year or so. Drivers were different story, but nothing changes w.r.t. drivers.

Do you mean swsusp is actually supposed to work?  Suspend-to-ram,
suspend-to-disk or both?

  OG.