[ltp] T41: swsusp vs. swsusp2

[honey]

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:

> The in-kernel code is very much maintained, and the last file-corruption
> issue turned out to be due to someone mounting a filesystem read/write
> before resuming (and so triggering journal playback).
>
> It's not entirely clear that suspend2 (in its current form) will be in
> the kernel in any sort of sensible timeframe. There's still disagreement
> over whether certain aspects of it are the correct approach.

Hmm, serves me right for speaking before updating my reading of lkml.
Yes, I see there's been something of a disagreement since the PM
Summit, where apparently suspend2 was agreed as the way forward.
When I last looked properly (a year ago when I was deciding which to
use :) ), swsusp seemed to received more or less disinterest, with
no-one picking problems up.  But I can see now there's a renewed
flurry of activity at reviving swsusp instead, and some "debate"
with suspend2 maintainers about patching it up rather than taking on
suspend2 with all its features.  I hope this bodes well for getting
some form of reliable and well-featured suspend into the kernel,
rather than politics freezing progress.

>>> * Speed
>>
>> Suspend2 hands down.
>
> This, however, is absolutely true.

Phew.

Honey
>