On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 07:35:43AM -0500, Marc Deslauriers wrote: > Besides the software and user experience issues above, I seem to recall > that the Canonical OEM testing was uncovering a lot of hardware where > hibernation was unreliable. So much so, in fact, that having it disabled > by default and only enabled once a particular hardware model passed the > hibernation stress tests made sense at that time.
> Perhaps firmware has improved since then. Maybe we could get the results > of recent OEM testing and see what percentage of current machines have > reliable hibernation? This would allow us to re-evaluate the decision > with some non-anecdotal facts and would help determine if the software > issues are worth fixing or not. I hadn't heard of this, but I would be surprised if firmware issues were causing problems with hibernate reliability - since hibernate almost completely bypasses the firmware, whereas suspend relies entirely on ACPI support in the firmware. In any case, I'm skeptical that this is a situation that warrants TB intervention. I think that the current implementation is reasonable given the technical constraints, and that it's clear what someone interested in re-enabling hibernate can do to make the option more reliable, addressing the reasons why it was initially disabled. This seems like a good topic for a session at the next vUDS, to make sure the stakeholders all have a chance to discuss their concerns together - provided that there is someone willing to do the work to improve handling of out-of-date kernels, insufficient free memory, etc. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- technical-board mailing list technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
