[Pm-utils] [PATCH 6/7] This patch adds framebuffer console handling routines.
victor.lowther at gmail.com
Wed Feb 13 08:32:13 PST 2008
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 05:05:44PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> 2008/2/13, Victor Lowther <victor.lowther at gmail.com>:
> > It is the only thing that we were missing from the s2ram tools.
> Serious question: Why don't we just use s2ram at first place instead
> of reimplementing the functionality? I mean, we already rely on
> external packages (vbetools) for the video handling stuff, so we could
> just as well rely on s2ram *instead*.
> Is it, because s2ram comes bundled together with s2disk and you don't
> want to use userspace hibernate? In that case, we could split s2ram
> and s2disk into separate binary packages.
Mostly because right now I am submitting patches for pm-utils, so I will
favor the approach it currently uses instead in relying on yet another
external package. We cannot get rid of the dependence on vbetools
because tuxonice relies on it for all three sleep methods.
> Imho using s2ram (with the quirks provided by hal, and optionally
> fallback to the builtin whitelist) seems like a good solution.
If a given distro wants to do that, fine. I have made it easier
for them to do so. With the modular sleep method patches, distros do
not have to patch the core pm-utils functionality to do just what you
propose -- just replace the uswsusp module with the one you want and
delete the (20|99)video sleep hooks.
I think that adding logic into pm-utils to handle s2ram or s2both
as a special case in our video quirk handling complexifies the current
video handling needlessly, when all the end-user or distro.
> I'm sure, Stefan also has some good technical arguments, why it's a
> good idea to do the video state store/restore in a single binary.
> Comments welcome.
> Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
> universe are pointed away from Earth?
Ubuntu Certified Professional
More information about the Pm-utils