From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262367AbVGGA3z (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jul 2005 20:29:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262321AbVGGA2C (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jul 2005 20:28:02 -0400 Received: from b3162.static.pacific.net.au ([203.143.238.98]:22198 "EHLO cunningham.myip.net.au") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262420AbVGGA0F (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jul 2005 20:26:05 -0400 Subject: Re: [0/48] Suspend2 2.1.9.8 for 2.6.12 From: Nigel Cunningham Reply-To: ncunningham@cyclades.com To: Pavel Machek Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: <20050706082230.GF1412@elf.ucw.cz> References: <11206164393426@foobar.com> <20050706082230.GF1412@elf.ucw.cz> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Cycades Message-Id: <1120696047.4860.525.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6-1mdk Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 10:27:28 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi again. On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 18:22, Pavel Machek wrote: > Is swsusp1 expected to be functional after these are applied? You > removed *some* of its hooks, but not all, so I'm confused. I've been thinking about this some more and wondering whether I should just replace swsusp. I really don't want to step on your toes though. What would you like to see happen? Regards, Nigel -- Evolution. Enumerate the requirements. Consider the interdependencies. Calculate the probabilities. Be amazed that people believe it happened.