Hi!
> > > > > For reference, this is the diff of this function (with the above
> > > > > patch)
> > > > > against a 2.6.13 (the last one i found around here that had this
> > > > > working, the
> > > > > kernel of suse 10.0, after that it disappeared before 2.6.16):
> > > > >
> > > > > # stati
Hi,
On Thursday, 19 October 2006 10:56, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > > For reference, this is the diff of this function (with the above patch)
> > > > against a 2.6.13 (the last one i found around here that had this
> > > > working, the
> > > > kernel of suse 10.0, after that it disappeared
Hi!
> > >> Why exacly was sys_sync removed from prepare_processes?
> > >
> > > Because it was moved to freeze_processes().
> > >
> > >> My last power failure during suspend-to-disk caused a journal replay
> > >> which took a few minutes on reboot.
> > >
> > > AFAICT, sys_sync doesn't prevent jo
Hi!
> > > For reference, this is the diff of this function (with the above patch)
> > > against a 2.6.13 (the last one i found around here that had this working,
> > > the
> > > kernel of suse 10.0, after that it disappeared before 2.6.16):
> > >
> > > # static int prepare_processes(void)
> > >
On Tuesday, 17 October 2006 22:17, Luca Tettamanti wrote:
> On 10/17/06, Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 17 October 2006 17:26, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> > > My last power failure during suspend-to-disk caused a journal replay
> > > which took a few minutes on reb
On 10/17/06, Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 17 October 2006 17:26, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> > My last power failure during suspend-to-disk caused a journal replay
> > which took a few minutes on reboot.
>
> AFAICT, sys_sync doesn't prevent journal replies from hap
On Tuesday, 17 October 2006 22:00, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 17 October 2006 17:26, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> >> Why exacly was sys_sync removed from prepare_processes?
> >
> > Because it was moved to freeze_processes().
> >
> >> My last power
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, 17 October 2006 17:26, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
>> Why exacly was sys_sync removed from prepare_processes?
>
> Because it was moved to freeze_processes().
>
>> My last power failure during suspend-to-disk caused a journal replay
>> which took a few minu
On Tuesday, 17 October 2006 17:26, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> Stefan Seyfried wrote:
> > For reference, this is the diff of this function (with the above patch)
> > against a 2.6.13 (the last one i found around here that had this working,
> > the
> > kernel of suse 10.0, after that it disappe
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 09:27:57PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > I tested it and it works. The moon only starts blinking after "shrinking
> > memory" which might take some time, so i reordered it a little bit. It even
> > makes the patch smaller:
>
> I don't think this ordering is correct,
On Tuesday, 17 October 2006 16:45, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 02:42:12PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 17 October 2006 08:41, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
>
> > > I did not forget this one, but will test later today.
> >
> > OK
>
> I tested it and it works. The
Stefan Seyfried wrote:
> For reference, this is the diff of this function (with the above patch)
> against a 2.6.13 (the last one i found around here that had this working, the
> kernel of suse 10.0, after that it disappeared before 2.6.16):
>
> # static int prepare_processes(void)
> # {
> #
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 02:42:12PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, 17 October 2006 08:41, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
> > I did not forget this one, but will test later today.
>
> OK
I tested it and it works. The moon only starts blinking after "shrinking
memory" which might take some
On Tuesday, 17 October 2006 08:41, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 09:45:03PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, 16 October 2006 21:21, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 09:06:07PM +0200, R. J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Monday, 16 October 2006 20:55,
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 09:45:03PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, 16 October 2006 21:21, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 09:06:07PM +0200, R. J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Monday, 16 October 2006 20:55, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > If nobody obje
On Monday, 16 October 2006 21:21, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 09:06:07PM +0200, R. J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, 16 October 2006 20:55, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > If nobody objects, i'd send this to LKML:
> > > Maybe somebody with a recent -mm kernel can t
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 09:06:07PM +0200, R. J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, 16 October 2006 20:55, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > If nobody objects, i'd send this to LKML:
> > Maybe somebody with a recent -mm kernel can test if it still applies there
> > :-)
>
> I have a very similar pat
On Monday, 16 October 2006 20:55, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If nobody objects, i'd send this to LKML:
> Maybe somebody with a recent -mm kernel can test if it still applies there :-)
I have a very similar patch, but with two differences, that applies to -mm
and has been tested (on one box)
Hi,
If nobody objects, i'd send this to LKML:
Maybe somebody with a recent -mm kernel can test if it still applies there :-)
--
Subject: swsusp: fix platform mode
Somewhen after 2.6.9, the in-kernel suspend got "incomple
19 matches
Mail list logo
