Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263988AbUCZJ7n (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Mar 2004 04:59:43 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263991AbUCZJ7n (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Mar 2004 04:59:43 -0500 Received: from gprs214-227.eurotel.cz ([160.218.214.227]:21888 "EHLO amd.ucw.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263988AbUCZJ7k (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Mar 2004 04:59:40 -0500 Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 10:59:29 +0100 From: Pavel Machek To: Michael Frank Cc: Jonathan Sambrook , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Swsusp mailing list Subject: Re: swsusp is not reliable. Face it. [was Re: [Swsusp-devel] Re: swsusp problems] Message-ID: <20040326095929.GA388@elf.ucw.cz> References: <1079659165.15559.34.camel@calvin.wpcb.org.au> <200403232352.58066.dtor_core@ameritech.net> <20040324102233.GC512@elf.ucw.cz> <200403240748.31837.dtor_core@ameritech.net> <20040324151831.GB25738@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <20040324202259.GJ20333@jsambrook> <20040325221348.GB2179@elf.ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1708 Lines: 42 Hi! On P? 26-03-04 13:59:55, Michael Frank wrote: > On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 23:13:48 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > >>Suspend is a mechanism to suspend the system transparently and > >>_NOT_EVER_ impairing the system. There can be NO_COMPROMISE and > >>NO_EXCUSE. I walk out of my office suspending the machine and resuming it > >>in front of my client it can't ever fail, or am I an idiot to advocate > >>linux? > >> > >>If I would be willing to accept failure I would not spend my time here and > >>utilize M$'s incarnation of an architectural idiocy. > > > >You are wrong. > > > >swsusp1 fails your test, swsusp2 fails your test, and pmdisk fails it, > >too. If half of memory is used by kmalloc(), there's no sane way to > >make suspend-to-disk working. And swsusp[12] does not. Granted, half > >of memory kmalloc-ed is unusual situation, but it can theoreticaly > >happen. Try mem=8M or something. > > No, I am not! > > mem=8M won't boot into a usable system. mem=~11M will not suspend and > swsusp2 will exit gracefully and this is tested. > > So swsusp2 does _not_ fail. You still have a usable system instead of a > paniced system you seem to like to accept. If swsusp1 panics system, that's a bug. I'm not accepting that one. Refusing to suspend (I'd call it "fail to suspend") is bad but is not a bug. Do we understand each other now? Pavel -- When do you have a heart between your knees? [Johanka's followup: and *two* hearts?] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/