Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)

From: Pavel Machek
Date: Mon Feb 20 2006 - 06:18:39 EST


On Po 20-02-06 12:17:56, Matthias Hensler wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 11:56:17AM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > On Po 20-02-06 10:47:28, Matthias Hensler wrote:
> > > I do not think that Suspend 2 needs 14000 lines for that, the core
> > > is much smaller. But besides, _not_ saving the pagecache is a really
> > > _bad_ idea. I expect to have my system back after resume, in the
> > > same state I had left it prior to suspend. I really do not like it
> > > how it is done by Windows, it is just ugly to have a slowly
> > > responding system after resume, because all caches and buffers are
> > > gone.
> >
> > That's okay, swsusp already saves configurable ammount of pagecache.
>
> What about uswsusp?

Same code is used for that.
Pavel
--
Web maintainer for suspend.sf.net (www.sf.net/projects/suspend) wanted...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/