Re: swsusp is not reliable. Face it. [was Re: [Swsusp-devel] Re: swsusp problems]

[Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>]

Hi!

On Pá 26-03-04 13:59:55, Michael Frank wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 23:13:48 +0100, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote:
> >>Suspend is a mechanism to suspend the system transparently and
> >>_NOT_EVER_ impairing the system. There can be NO_COMPROMISE and
> >>NO_EXCUSE. I walk out of my office suspending the machine and resuming it
> >>in front of my client it can't ever fail, or am I an idiot to advocate
> >>linux?
> >>
> >>If I would be willing to accept failure I would not spend my time here and
> >>utilize M$'s  incarnation of an architectural idiocy.
> >
> >You are wrong.
> >
> >swsusp1 fails your test, swsusp2 fails your test, and pmdisk fails it,
> >too. If half of memory is used by kmalloc(), there's no sane way to
> >make suspend-to-disk working. And swsusp[12] does not. Granted, half
> >of memory kmalloc-ed is unusual situation, but it can theoreticaly
> >happen. Try mem=8M or something.
> 
> No, I am not!
> 
> mem=8M won't boot into a usable system. mem=~11M will not suspend and
> swsusp2 will exit gracefully and this is tested.
> 
> So swsusp2 does _not_ fail. You still have a usable system instead of a
> paniced system you seem to like to accept.

If swsusp1 panics system, that's a bug. I'm not accepting that one.

Refusing to suspend (I'd call it "fail to suspend") is bad but is not
a bug. Do we understand each other now?
								Pavel
-- 
When do you have a heart between your knees?
[Johanka's followup: and *two* hearts?]