From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161101AbWGJGUi (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Jul 2006 02:20:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161135AbWGJGUi (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Jul 2006 02:20:38 -0400 Received: from pop5-1.us4.outblaze.com ([205.158.62.125]:57047 "HELO pop5-1.us4.outblaze.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1161101AbWGJGUi (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Jul 2006 02:20:38 -0400 From: Nigel Cunningham To: suspend2-devel@lists.suspend2.net Subject: Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: uswsusp history lesson Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 16:20:30 +1000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 Cc: Jason Lunz , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20060627133321.GB3019@elf.ucw.cz> <200607100706.45789.ncunningham@linuxmail.org> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart6704119.3iUQIIaDna"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200607101620.34408.ncunningham@linuxmail.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --nextPart6704119.3iUQIIaDna Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Hi. On Monday 10 July 2006 13:57, Jason Lunz wrote: > ncunningham@linuxmail.org said: > > If Suspend2 added code in a way that broke swsusp, I would agree. But > > it=3D20 doesn't. > > That isn't true. I stopped using the suspend2 patches after they broke > the in-kernel suspend twice in the last year, since 2.6.14 or so. (The > first time I reported one of these bugs is here: > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.swsusp.general/3243) The switch to using the swsusp lowlevel code was a bit bumpy, and I do admi= t=20 that I broke swsusp from time to time, but these are the exceptions (as you= =20 say), and the general design is such that they should be coexist. I'll free= ly=20 admit that I don't regularly test swsusp, but I'm also not reguarly changin= g=20 things that should break it. > Before I stopped using suspend2, there was a 6-8 month period where I > could easily use both in-kernel swsusp and suspend2 on my laptop. I kept > using suspend2 because it was faster, but I eventually stopped because > it locked up the machine during suspend or crashed it during resume on > one out of every 20-30 tries (and the crashes weren't in some driver > - the backtrace always pointed down into the guts of suspend code). Did you report them to the list? I try to be responsive (although, again, I= =20 don't always succeed to the extent that I'd like. > In-kernel swsusp, on the other hand, aside from being slower, has never > crashed or frozen the machine. The same is true of the new uswsusp code, > which i'd say subjectively feels nearly as fast as suspend2 was, with > both using lzf compression. Yeah, being much simpler does have its advantages, and Rafael has done a go= od=20 job with the uswsusp code. Hopefully I'll get to test it properly soon. Regards, Nigel =2D-=20 Nigel, Michelle and Alisdair Cunningham 5 Mitchell Street Cobden 3266 Victoria, Australia --nextPart6704119.3iUQIIaDna Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBEsfGyN0y+n1M3mo0RArXNAJ9kym2EOEXsMtwS9i3ZDvKW5HIIZQCgsaii 8hwN9tPOk3VPLakbhdnPgo4= =IxjM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart6704119.3iUQIIaDna--