Hi. On Sunday 09 July 2006 05:48, Sunil Kumar wrote: > > 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. > > Is that really true, Nigel, that you want 1)? I would be happy for suspend2 and swsusp to coexist for at least at while. That's why I've made suspend2 play nicely with swsusp ever since I ported it to 2.6. > Is it really impossible to have the third possbility of both the > implementations in kernel at the same time? If Nigel has a patch against mm > series, that means that he has taken care of all the conflicts. Are we > missing something here? I just about have one. I just have one issue (the removal of name_to_dev_t by klibc) to address. A really simple or short-term solution would be to re-add it, but I want to think the issue through more carefully first. Regards, Nigel -- Nigel, Michelle and Alisdair Cunningham 5 Mitchell Street Cobden 3266 Victoria, Australia
Attachment:
pgpGv13aCUJHB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- References:
- Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: uswsusp history lesson
- From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[email protected]>
- Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: uswsusp history lesson
- Prev by Date: Re: Runnable threads on run queue
- Next by Date: Re: uswsusp history lesson [was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: swsusp / suspend2 reliability]
- Previous by thread: Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: uswsusp history lesson
- Next by thread: Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: uswsusp history lesson
- Index(es):
 |