Re: Reasons to merge suspend2.

> I didn't read your whole post, it's way too long, but I would like to see 
> your patch in mainline as an option to swsusp.  What would make this 
> infeasible?

For one thing, Linus said not but yesterday that he doesn't want multiple 
competing suspend algorithms like this in the kernel at once. (If I parsed 
his message correctly, he doesn't want any in the kernel, but he's putting 
up with it because it seems somewhat needed.)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Reasons to merge suspend2.
    • From: Bill Davidsen <[email protected]>
  • Re: Reasons to merge suspend2.
    • From: William Heimbigner <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: Reasons to merge suspend2.
    • From: Al Boldi <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [spi-devel-general] adding bits_per_word to struct spi_board_info to mirror struct spi_device
• Next by Date: Re: suspend2 merge (was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: CFS and suspend2: hang in atomic copy)
• Previous by thread: Re: Reasons to merge suspend2.
• Next by thread: Re: Reasons to merge suspend2.
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]