On Thu 03. May - 21:55:14, Danny Kukawka wrote: > On Donnerstag, 3. Mai 2007, David Zeuthen wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 10:40 +0200, Danny Kukawka wrote: > > > The point is not using s2ram or that s2ram would break. The point is that > > > removing the quirk would break resume if you suspend via init=/bin/bash > > > (the testcase) or console. This change only work under X. All this has > > > nothing to do with s2ram, only with the suspend itself. > > > > I'll rephrase my questions > > > > 1. Is it correct than s2ram has it's own list of quirks? > > Currently yes
To be a little bit pernickety, actually HAL is using its own list no one else is using AFAIK ;-) Every distro I know of currently uses the s2ram internal one. [...] > IIRC the s2ram developers already think about adding support for the HAL > quirks, maybe in some kind of mixed mode (if there are no HAL info's use the > own whitelist). I add the devel mailinglist to CC, I think they can tell > more. Still, what we definitely want is _one single_ architecture independent whitelist. And there is where hal-info comes in which is easy to update for distributions etc. IMHO. I'm seeing this difficulty with the two different lists for quite some time know and thought about possible solutions. AFAICS, the main reason for heaving s2ram internal whitelist is that s2ram can be used completely without any trace of hal on some system. So best would be to maintain the whitelist in one place and having a converter. I already started to write a XML parser for the hal-info xml whitelist to convert it to the whitelist.c file, but had to recognize that it wouldn't be easy and had to give up. It would be possible, yes, but it will get very complicated and wouldn't be worth the trouble. The fdi files use some strange way of nesting xml tags which is not easy to parse if you need to know which closing tag belongs to which opening one, and especially to keep track of the information contained. Additionally, when the initially conversion from s2ram's whitelist to hal-info was done, there already were information/detail loss. To convert back and forth would just result in more and more information loss because fdi files and the whitelist.c will always have different capabilities of matching against machine information. Maintaining two whitelists is definitely not the way to go. But let's wait for the suspend developer to comment... Regards, Holger ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ Suspend-devel mailing list Suspend-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/suspend-devel