On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 11:12:44AM -0500, Justin Forbes wrote:
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 10:18 AM, Lennart Poettering mzerqung@0pointer.de wrote:
On Di, 02.10.18 14:34, Hans de Goede (hdegoede@redhat.com) wrote:
Ok fair enough. Keeping it easy for users to try out hibernate is a valid argument.
This is just weird. Why would GNOME expose a button to regular user that reads "hey, press me, please use this feature, but it's not going to work, and nobody is going to help you with it or fix bugs, kthxbye". That's just awful UI.
Quite frankly, this is quite ridiculous. GNOME is not the only user of this, we shouldn't expose crap that doesn't work in the UI, regardless what the UI looks like. GNOME has every right to assume that what the underlying layers advertise works. And when it doesn't then the underlying layers should stop advertising this.
I have to say I agree with Justin on this. The main reason is that I think hibernate "mostly works", as long as the configuration is correct (resume= is present, swap is not encrypted with an ephemeral key, etc). I'll start a separate thread asking people about their experiences so that we can gather some more anecdata.
If systemd is truly just a proxy for the mechanism, there is no actual policy there, why would systemd bother filtering it out at all?
I have been working on (simple) patches [1] to both improve detection when we should disable hibernation (e.g. resume= is missing) and to make it easy to do this through configuration (set AllowHibernation= in /etc/systemd/sleep.conf).
Behaviour of systemd should improve a bit once those are merged. But this argument is convincing for me: before, I wanted to set the policy in systemd rpm, e.g. by setting AllowHibernation=no once that's possible. But it is clear that g-s-d is making the policy choice here, so the policy change should be reverted there.
[1] https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/10262
Zbyszek