Suspend2

High|ander · 2007-05-07 19:50:12

Hello! Just wondering how the progress is going on making 2.6.20-suspend2. I'm having problems with my ipw2200-card on kernel26-suspend2 (2.6.19).

Vins · 2007-05-07 20:03:43

What kind of problems do you have? I'm using the 2.6.19-suspend2 with ipw2200 and everything seems to run fine...

ViNS

Last edited by Vins (2007-05-07 20:06:11)

High|ander · 2007-05-07 20:21:39

I can connect to my AP but only download a few kB and then it "stops" and i have to restart the driver

patroclo7 · 2007-05-07 21:47:51

I really doubt that it is related to suspend2, which does not touch anything in wireless stuff. I hope that kernel26suspend2 will be updated directly to 2.6.21 (the patch 2.2.9.13 works fine with it). I am in fear that it will be discontinued as beyond, which would be a real pity.

High|ander · 2007-05-08 01:25:13

I reset the AP and it seems to work, it must be a crappy AP.

brain0 · 2007-05-08 02:36:15

patroclo7 wrote:

I hope that kernel26suspend2 will be updated directly to 2.6.21 (the patch 2.2.9.13 works fine with it). I am in fear that it will be discontinued as beyond, which would be a real pity.

I am sorry, I didn't have time yet to rebuild all modules and check them into the repository. The suspend2 kernel itself runs fine now, I got a 2.2.9.13 patch with some further bugfixes. Maybe I will get to it tomorrow.
Again, sorry for the delay.

High|ander · 2007-05-08 06:27:57

Thats cool. Thanks alot for the work!!!

patroclo7 · 2007-05-08 09:33:13

Thanks brain0 for your effort, happy to hear this

FoPref · 2007-05-08 22:55:04

Hi brain0,

thanks for your efforts. I just have a question: Is .13 inside kernel26suspend2 2.6.21.1-1? It's because .13 is a version with a bug fixed that crashes my setup (Nigel told me he fixed it in .13)..

It would also be nice to see the suspend2 version applied, and not only "current-suspend2-2.6.21.patch.bz2", whereas also CVS gives no clue at all about the incorporated version.

Regards,
Johannes

patroclo7 · 2007-05-08 23:48:17

What is applied is .13 + something more (what will be .14), since .13 in itself seems to be quite unstable on certain machines. This is the reason why in this very case the version is not indicated (it is not exactly a version), while it is suggested by the fact that in the PKGBUILD 2.2.9.13 is commented out, if you look at it. I guess that that line will be uncommented when it is possible to use a stable or unstable release.

FoPref · 2007-05-09 08:10:48

Thanks for your answer!

I tried it out and it works for me (the old bug is away), but only, if I suspend from X ;-)

brain0 · 2007-05-09 18:09:51

FoPref wrote:

thanks for your efforts. I just have a question: Is .13 inside kernel26suspend2 2.6.21.1-1? It's because .13 is a version with a bug fixed that crashes my setup (Nigel told me he fixed it in .13)..

It's a version I got from nigel shortly after the 2.2.9.13 release. He said it was a 2.2.10 candidate. I haven't seen nigel in a few days, seems that real life has gotten to him as well, but I think 2.2.10 will be there soon.

patroclo7 · 2007-05-09 18:11:56

The last news in the ML was that there will be a 2.2.9.14 with the updates you have already pulled in. He hopes this to be the last unstable release before the stable 2.2.10

big_gie · 2007-05-10 13:57:18

Why is there a different kernel for suspend2? Is it because its development is not in sync with vanilla? I'd really like to use suspend2, but I would prefer using something more official.
I'm compiling my own now, but I'll have to recompile my modules (nvidia and others). This problem apply to kernel maintainers too: many kernel patchsets means many module compilation. I think it is a bit complicated to have many kernel! beyond is dead now because of lack of time/interest. Having multiple kernel just multiply the work to be done...

FoPref · 2007-05-10 14:04:08

The answer is simple: Suspend2 is not part of the upstream/vanilla kernel. That's enough to not include it.

It's not the Arch way to patch the standard kernel or any other package with lots of "cool stuff".

And second, suspend2 is indeed not in sync with vanilla. Especially not the stable releases.

big_gie · 2007-05-10 15:00:18

Hum... There is like 17 patches in the -ARCH kernel... I would prefer having suspend2 than squashfs...
It's sad that suspend2 is not in vanilla... I think it works great, but hey, I'm not Linus

I don't think that a kernel patched with suspend2 is less stable then without if you don't use the suspend2 capabilities. And it can even cohabit with swsusp in the kernel. The user can choose witch one to use...

rdt · 2007-05-10 15:47:41

But I have seen systems that sometimes will NOT boot when suspend2 is in the kernel. For those systems I do not want to have it in place. For them I need the "vanila" kernel.

ekerazha · 2007-07-03 13:49:28

Suspend2 is now TuxOnIce: http://www.tuxonice.net

iphitus · 2007-07-04 08:54:15

rdt wrote:

But I have seen systems that sometimes will NOT boot when suspend2 is in the kernel. For those systems I do not want to have it in place. For them I need the "vanila" kernel.

This *shouldnt* occur. Please report these systems. To Nigel's (Suspend2 developer) best knowledge, it boots on all, so unless you report them, and how it fails, it will continue to fail.

James

Arch Linux

#1 2007-05-07 19:50:12

Suspend2

#2 2007-05-07 20:03:43

Re: Suspend2

#3 2007-05-07 20:21:39

Re: Suspend2

#4 2007-05-07 21:47:51

Re: Suspend2

#5 2007-05-08 01:25:13

Re: Suspend2

#6 2007-05-08 02:36:15

Re: Suspend2

#7 2007-05-08 06:27:57

Re: Suspend2

#8 2007-05-08 09:33:13

Re: Suspend2

#9 2007-05-08 22:55:04

Re: Suspend2

#10 2007-05-08 23:48:17

Re: Suspend2

#11 2007-05-09 08:10:48

Re: Suspend2

#12 2007-05-09 18:09:51

Re: Suspend2

#13 2007-05-09 18:11:56

Re: Suspend2

#14 2007-05-10 13:57:18

Re: Suspend2

#15 2007-05-10 14:04:08

Re: Suspend2

#16 2007-05-10 15:00:18

Re: Suspend2

#17 2007-05-10 15:47:41

Re: Suspend2

#18 2007-07-03 13:49:28

Re: Suspend2

#19 2007-07-04 08:54:15

Re: Suspend2

Board footer