On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 01:25:39PM -0300, Gustavo Franco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 6/30/06, Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 11:54:42AM +0200, Tim Dijkstra > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 15:14:07 -0300 > >> "Gustavo Franco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > On 6/29/06, Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > > Software suspend which exists in kernel for several years? > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > And works properly in Debian since what? Weeks? Months?:-) > >> > > >> > It doesn't really work properly anywhere, does it? :-P > >> > >> Has worked properly here very well with suspend2, which isn't in the > >> stock kernel unfortunately. > > > >Has worked properly here very well with whatever is in the debian > >kernel, since 2.6.15 at least. > > > > Well Mike, maybe very well for you not for many users and some kernel > developers[0] agreed. Btw, Greg wrote an article for lwn (major > suspend changes), > read it there if you're subscribed. Really interesting content that shows > the > current problems with the kernel implementation (up to 2.6.17) that should > be solved soon, since Linus came up with a interesting patch. > > [0] = > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.power-management.general/1884/focus=1884
Hum, this is about suspend to ram, not suspend to disk. Though suspend to ram has been working almost flawlessly for me since 2.6.9 or 2.6.10. (sometimes it freezes at wakeup time). I don't really care if the kernel developpers say it's badly done. It just works. That's all I'm asking. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
