From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-Id: <200210281600.g9SG0o123154@zamenhof.cs.utwente.nl>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] bitsy uvlong & suspend are fine, thanks.
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 28 Oct 2002 16:54:13 +0100."
             <9cb095f27563a246937917b5caa59fdc@plan9.escet.urjc.es>
References: <9cb095f27563a246937917b5caa59fdc@plan9.escet.urjc.es>
From: Axel Belinfante <Axel.Belinfante@cs.utwente.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 17:00:50 +0100
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 0fc4bd2c-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

Any idea what (other) effects it would have I would downgrade to
a boot loader version that is close(r) to yours?

I recall that someone else (I'm sorry, forgot your name) mentioned
that suspend/resume never worked.
Question for you and others who also have suspend/resume problems:
do you also have a ``recent'' boot loader?

Axel.

> It seems that at 2.16.x they changed to boot loader to suspend/boot
> both linux and WinCE. So, it looks like our suspend code doesn't
> work for those boot loaders (since we have everything else the same). Sic.