From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix console handling during suspend/resume Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 15:22:51 +0200 Message-ID: <20060616132250.GA1666@elf.ucw.cz> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: David Brownell , linux-pm@lists.osdl.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Hi! > And yes, I admit (and I started off talking about this) that I care a lot = > more about suspend-to-ram than I do about suspend-to-disk. I seriously = > claim that STR _should_ be a lot simpler than suspend-to-disk, because it = > avoids all the memory management problems. The reason that we support = > suspend-to-disk but not STR is totally perverse - it's simply that it has = > been easier to debug, because unlike STR, we can do a "real boot" into a = > working system, and thus we don't have the debugging problems that the = > "easy" suspend/resume case has. This is one reason, there are two more. > Which is obviously also why patch 1/2 (and in many way the more = > fundamental one) was about trying to make debugging much simpler. Or at = > least possible. Yes, 1/2 is pretty clever hack that can't hurt. Debugging s2ram will still be bad, but probably no longer a nightmare. Pavel -- = (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blo= g.html