Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: uswsusp history lesson

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Saturday 08 July 2006 18:50, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-07-08 at 09:42 -0700, Sunil Kumar wrote:
> >         Multiple all-half-working implementations is insane. It means
> >         bugs don't
> >         get fixed, it means there isn't going to be ANY implementation
> >         that is 
> >         good enough for a broad audience. People will just switch to
> >         another one
> >         rather than reporting and causing even the most simple bugs to
> >         get
> > 
> > you are afraid nobody is going to use uswsusp (because it doesn't work
> > or is not useful) and not going to report any bugs against it, and it
> > will cease to exist over time. I think that is very good. Survival of
> > the good. The winner will be decided by users automatically. Not by
> > someone who 
> note that I'm not picking sides. I don't care which ego gets to win.
> What do care about that Linux ends up with a good implementation,
> whatever that is. I have no idea is uswsusp will make it (in fact it
> feels fragile to me, but then again all sw suspend implementations
> including swsusp2 feel fragile to me). But for crying out loud
> Bang heads together. Go for beer at OLS. I don't care how, but anything
> to prevent the insane thing of having multiple half working
> implementations.

I think everyone agrees with that.  However, the problem is we already have
two of them and one is out of the tree.  Each of them has its supporters who
believe their implementation of choice is "better" and want it to become
the Only One.  Unfortunately the implementations are not 100% mergeable for
technical reasons and the out-of-the-tree one is more feature-rich.

Now there seem to be two possible ways to go:
1) Drop the implementation that already is in the kernel and replace it with
the out-of-the-tree one.
2) Improve the one that already is in the kernel incrementally, possibly
merging some code from the out-of-the-tree implementation, so that it's as
feature-rich as the other one.

Apparently 1) is what Nigel is trying to make happen and 2) is what I'd like
to do.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux