Re: [Suspend2][ 0/9] Extents support.

[Nigel Cunningham <nigel@suspend2.net>]

Hi.

On Thursday 29 June 2006 15:19, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On 6/29/06, Nigel Cunningham <nigel@suspend2.net> wrote:
> > Sure, I know where I'd be headed, but it would be a huge waste of time
> > and effort.
>
> Perhaps to you Nigel.  For the rest of us reviewing your patches, it's
> much better.  I suspect it would be better for the users down the road
> as well.  I don't know if you realize it, but what you're doing now
> is, "here's a big chunck of code, take it or leave it".  And at least
> historically people have had hard time doing getting stuff merged like
> that.

I did try really hard not to do that (big chunk of code, take it or leave it). 
That's why it's split up into so many little patches. The problem seems to be 
that it's not split up in the way some people wanted, rather than not split 
up at all. I want to make it easier on you guys, but it just seems to me like 
regardless of what I do, it's not the right thing.

I can understand wanting small changes to swsusp to transform it into 
suspend2, but I also understand that I've spent approximately 5 years of 
developing from the point Pavel forked the code base until today, and part of 
that has been two complete reworkings of the way in which the data is stored 
and the thing operates - irreducible complexity that just doesn't fit into 
the incremental change model. So I'm trying to do what seems to me to be the 
next best thing. Having arranged functions that deal with particular parts of 
the system into individual files, I've broken the files up into logical parts 
and submitted them in groups. If we consider the more primitive parts first, 
then move to the increasingly abstract operations (or vice versa), I think 
we'll have a good approach with what's already done.

Regards,

Nigel
-- 
See http://www.suspend2.net for Howtos, FAQs, mailing
lists, wiki and bugzilla info.

Attachment: pgpU4reggx0nv.pgp
Description: PGP signature