On Feb 8, 2008 1:40 PM, Till Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri February 8 2008, Victor Lowther wrote: > > > I would not add it as an intergal part of pm-utils. tuxonice, > > for example, can be configured to hibernate/resume without touching a > > swap partition or a swap file. > > Iirc did you create some patches that separte the checks for the different > sleep methods for the different backends.
Yeah, once Victor's patch to separate the backends, this check should be part of the kernel check_hibernate sequence, IMO. Then again, I'm not intimately familiar with the kernel process to say that swap is definitely mandatory for kernel hibernating. > > Well, I would not have pm-is-supported check for the presence of an > > available swap partition -- a usage scenario that would break involves > > someone who normally runs without swap, and mounts the swap partition just > > for hibernate > > How does this break? As soon as someone activates a swap partition, the output > of pm-is-supported would change. And in case it is not activated, hibernation > would fail anyways. Unless he uses a different sleep-backend than the kernel > of course. I agree. If you're in the situation where you only mount swap to do the hibernate, then it would be nice to have pm-utils tell you when you forgot to do that. -- Dan _______________________________________________ Pm-utils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-utils
