From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove process freezer from suspend to RAM pathway Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 15:12:58 +0200 Message-ID: <200707031512.59194.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <20070703042916.GA17240@srcf.ucam.org> <1183448224.12649.14.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1183448224.12649.14.camel@localhost> Content-Disposition: inline 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: Romano Giannetti Cc: Matthew Garrett , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday, 3 July 2007 09:37, Romano Giannetti wrote: > On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 05:29 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > or alternatively we could do what we do for suspend to RAM on other > > platforms (PPC and APM) and just not use the freezer. > > As a data point, I am running with this patch on top of 2.6.21.2 the > last 3+ weeks, with an average of 5/6 STR cycles a day, and had no > problems at all. (Sony vaio pcg-fx701). Just normal work, I didn't try > to stress the thing, but I have quite a few times suspended/resumed over > a big compile without a glitch. > > What are the risks of this patch supposed to be? See https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/linux-pm/2007-June/012847.html Greetings, Rafael -- "Premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Donald Knuth