On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 11:12:44AM -0500, Justin Forbes wrote:
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 10:18 AM, Lennart Poettering
> On Di, 02.10.18 14:34, Hans de Goede (hdegoede(a)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
policy there, why would systemd bother filtering it out at all?
I have been working on (simple) patches  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=
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.