From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] swsusp: do not use pm_ops (was: Re: ...)) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 10:17:17 +0200 Message-ID: <20070509081717.GA7741@elf.ucw.cz> References: <200705080047.08319.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Alan Stern Cc: Nigel Cunningham , Pekka Enberg , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, Johannes Berg List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Hi! > We give the user a chance to decide how this tradeoff should go when > entering hibernation. Why not also give the user a chance to decide the > tradeoff during normal shutdown? > > Yes, it violates the spec in the sense that we would be entering S4 > without saving a memory image. I think you already replied to yourself :-). There are more reasons, like we getting useless code paths to debug. So far you demonstrated that S4-on-shutdown is probably possible, and while violating specs, it should probably work. What do you expect now? Me jumping with joy and implementing S4-on-shutdown because it should be possible? Now... if you feel very strongly about S4-on-shutdown, you may try to create a patch. If it is not-too-ugly, and if it is really good for something, we may merge it. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html