Re: [ACPI] Re: [2.5.50, ACPI] link error

[Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>]

Hi!

> > 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.