Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262942AbUKYCz0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Nov 2004 21:55:26 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262935AbUKYCz0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Nov 2004 21:55:26 -0500 Received: from pop5-1.us4.outblaze.com ([205.158.62.125]:17565 "HELO pop5-1.us4.outblaze.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S262949AbUKYCyJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Nov 2004 21:54:09 -0500 Subject: Re: Suspend 2 merge: 34/51: Includes From: Nigel Cunningham Reply-To: ncunningham@linuxmail.org To: Matthew Garrett Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: References: <1101292194.5805.180.camel@desktop.cunninghams> <1101297843.5805.324.camel@desktop.cunninghams> <20041124132558.GB13034@infradead.org> <20041124132558.GB13034@infradead.org> <1101327443.3425.11.camel@desktop.cunninghams> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1101350629.25030.9.camel@desktop.cunninghams> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6-1mdk Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:43:49 +1100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1684 Lines: 43 Hi. On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 10:19, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > > I can see that it might look that way, but it's actually fundamental to > > the support for building as modules (which is required for LVM & > > encryption), and has been really helpful in creating clear distinctions > > between the different parts of suspend. It also provides a clear method > > for someone to add support for their new wizz-bang storage method or > > compressor. > > I'm not entirely clear on this. Surely all that's needed for LVM and > encryption support is for that to be set up in userspace and then allow > userspace to trigger a second attempt at resume? I have a hacky patch > for swsusp that allows that (at the moment it just adds a "resume" > method to /sys/power/state), which gives you the functionality without > the module pain. Yes, sorry. I'm confusing initrd/ramfs support with modules. You can resume from an initrd/ramfs without building as modules. Regardless, building support as modules does have the other advantages noted above, and I haven't found adding support for building as modules to be a pain at all. Sorry again for confusing the issue. Nigel -- Nigel Cunningham Pastoral Worker Christian Reformed Church of Tuggeranong PO Box 1004, Tuggeranong, ACT 2901 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. -- Romans 5:6 - 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/