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

[Bojan Smojver <bojan@rexursive.com>]

On Sat, 2006-07-08 at 21:25 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki 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.

I didn't get the impression from 1) at all. If anything, Nigel has been
busy making Suspend2 use swsusp machinery *more*, not less as of
recently. If he wanted to drop swsusp completely, why would he do
something like that?

But, the confusing bit for me here is 2). Given that you're the man for
uswsusp, why would you want to keep any of the in-kernel
implementations? The only thing that crosses my mind right now is that
uswsusp may be a bit heavy on setup, so Linux distros/users that may not
have the luxury of doing all that would be left without a suspend/resume
solution. Is that why you want to keep an in-kernel implementation as
well? Or is there some other reason?

-- 
Bojan

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/