From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S270823AbTGNUdC (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:33:02 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S270788AbTGNUa5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:30:57 -0400 Received: from smtp-out2.iol.cz ([194.228.2.87]:42650 "EHLO smtp-out2.iol.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S270829AbTGNU3J (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:29:09 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 22:43:35 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: Nigel Cunningham Cc: Vojtech Pavlik , Jamie Lokier , Dmitry Torokhov , swsusp-devel , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [Swsusp-devel] Re: Thoughts wanted on merging Software Suspend enhancements Message-ID: <20030714204335.GJ902@elf.ucw.cz> References: <200307121734.29941.dtor_core@ameritech.net> <20030712225143.GA1508@elf.ucw.cz> <20030713133517.GD19132@mail.jlokier.co.uk> <20030713193114.GD570@elf.ucw.cz> <1058130071.1829.2.camel@laptop-linux> <20030713210934.GK570@elf.ucw.cz> <1058147684.2400.9.camel@laptop-linux> <20030714201245.GC24964@ucw.cz> <20030714201804.GF902@elf.ucw.cz> <1058214607.3987.14.camel@laptop-linux> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1058214607.3987.14.camel@laptop-linux> X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! > I'm going to stand firm on this one, Pavel. > > I think being able to cancel a suspend is a really useful feature, and > I'll be surprised if we don't see Microsoft including it in their next > version of Windows (perhaps I should take a patent out! :>) :-). > That's not to say that I haven't listened to you, however. That's why I > tightened up the requirements for using it yesterday. As to the extra > proc entry, it's not a biggie: 2.4 swsusp now has it's own proc handling > code which is easily extensible. I did this to make it easier to > understand. > > This... > > [nigel@laptop-linux nigel]$ ls -l /proc/swsusp/ > total 0 > --w------- 1 root root 0 Jul 15 08:28 activate > -rw------- 1 root root 0 Jul 15 08:28 async_io_limit > -rw------- 1 root root 0 Jul 15 08:28 beeping > -rw------- 1 root root 0 Jul 15 08:28 checkpage > -rw------- 1 root root 0 Jul 15 08:28 debug_sections > -rw------- 1 root root 0 Jul 15 08:28 default_console_level > -rw------- 1 root root 0 Jul 15 08:28 enable_escape > -rw------- 1 root root 0 Jul 15 08:28 image_size_limit > -r-------- 1 root root 0 Jul 15 08:28 interface_version > -r-------- 1 root root 0 Jul 15 08:28 last_result > -rw------- 1 root root 0 Jul 15 08:28 log_everything > -rw------- 1 root root 0 Jul 15 08:28 no_async_reads > -rw------- 1 root root 0 Jul 15 08:28 no_async_writes > -rw------- 1 root root 0 Jul 15 08:28 no_output > -rw------- 1 root root 0 Jul 15 08:28 nopageset2 > -rw------- 1 root root 0 Jul 15 08:28 pause_between_steps > -rw------- 1 root root 0 Jul 15 08:28 progressbar_granularity_limit > -rw------- 1 root root 0 Jul 15 08:28 reboot > -rw------- 1 root root 0 Jul 15 08:28 slow > -r-------- 1 root root 0 Jul 15 08:28 version > [nigel@laptop-linux nigel]$ > > is easier to understand and configure. The /proc/sys/kernel/swsusp > interface is still there to make it easy to save & restore them all at > once. Ouch.. But how many of these /proc tweaks need to stay there once debugging is done? I do not like any configuration options for swsusp... It should just work. [Okay, we probably need to have resume= parameter.] For 2.4.X I don't care. For official tree, it has to "just work" with as little configuration as possible. [Besides enable_escape, what else might user want to tweak?] Pavel -- When do you have a heart between your knees? [Johanka's followup: and *two* hearts?]