Bug 104767
| Summary: | RFE: please include ACPI compatible software suspend support | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Phillip Heller <pheller> |
| Component: | kernel | Assignee: | Dave Jones <davej> |
| Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | aleksey, barryn, bnocera, chris.ricker, davej, fedora, gt, k.georgiou, petrosyan, pfrields, riel, wtogami |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | FutureFeature |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Enhancement | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2004-10-26 17:58:38 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Phillip Heller
2003-09-20 19:30:57 UTC
swsusp isn't being considered for inclusion in any 2.4 based Red Hat kernel at this time, and is unlikely to change. Rawhide includes a 2.6 pre-release now (without swsusp enabled). Time to revisit this? P.S. BTW, I am using swsusp-enabled kernel RPMs from ftp://ftp.mat.univie.ac.at/pub/rpm - they work fine for me. swsusp isn't going to happen for FC2 either, due to concerns of code quality. (And the fact that there's 3 half-arsed suspend solutions instead of one good one right now). CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP=y in the current rawhide kernels, which some people claim is enough for them, whilst others aren't having much luck with it, so it's uncertain whether or not it'll be staying for the final FC2 release. Hopefully this can finally happen for FC3. BTW, I have been recompiling Raw Hide kernels with CONFIG_SOFTWARE_SUSPEND=y for a few months now and after the 4G/4G split related problems were fixed, it have been working perfectly. Arjan said something about any software suspend implementation as being highly problematic. While it may work for you, it would be dangerous to enable for all users. Unless you enable it, it will do nothing. So if a user enables it, the user knows what he/she is doing. So I don't see the danger, its not like if you press the red button your computer will self destruct;-) your "if a user enables it, the user knows what he/she is doing" is completely unfounded, given past experiences. end-users see functionality, and they try it. In the case of swsusp, this may work, it may not. Personally, I'd rather not risk my data to this code, so it's staying off until a miracle happens upstream. |