> > I think that s4bios is nice to have. Its similar to S3 and easier to
> > set up than swsusp... It would be nice to have it.
>
> for me:
> pros:
> -----
> 1- it is really really more easier to implement than S4;
> 2- we can even have it with 2.4 kernels (it seems that it work without
> the need of freezing processes, but I suspect that this statement
> is 'wrong' by nature).
>
> cons:
> -----
> 1- it is much slower (especially at save time) than your swsusp;
> 2- end users must setup their systems (need to create a suspend partition,
> or to keep a vfat partition as the really first one (/dev/hda1));
> 3- we use a bios function. Actually, everything can happen...
>
> That why I prefer swsusp at this time, or any other implementation of S4 (I
> think about an implementation of S4 via LKCD).
Yes I think swsusp is better (long term), but it might be worth it to
have S4bios, too. At least it has nice graphical task bars :-). Can
you push the patch, or is it okay for me to try to get it merged?
Pavel
-- Casualities in World Trade Center: ~3k dead inside the building, cryptography in U.S.A. and free speech in Czech Republic. - 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/