Re: suspend2 merge (was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: CFS and suspend2: hang in atomic copy)

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>]

On Wednesday, 25 April 2007 23:30, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > > Please ask anyone who's worked with me if he's had any problem with that.
> > > If anyone say I'm unable to work with anybody else, I'd say you're right.  Till
> > > then, I feel offended.
> > 
> > I'll apologise (and virtually kiss your hairy feet) if you could actually 
> > show me a single implementation that people can agree on.
> > 
> > But until then, I claim that the suspend-to-disk people cannot work with 
> > each other.
> 
> It is not Rafael's fault. Actually it is quite hard to work with
> Nigel, because he implements every feature someone asks for, and wants
> to merge them all :-(. I don't expect to ever agree with Nigel on
> anything important, sorry.
> 
> > And no, "three different implementations" doesn't cut it. Even _two_ is 
> > too much. We need to get *rid* of something, not add more.
> 
> swsusp can be dropped. It is nice -- self contained, extremely easy to
> setup, Andrew likes it. uswsusp has all the features, and pretty
> elegant design. With klibc (or some way to ship userland code with
> kernel, and put it into initramfs or something) we can reasonably drop
> swsusp.

Well, I think we still need it and will need it in the future, at least for
debugging.  Moreover, I think there are many users of it.

Let's not drop things that are helping us. :-)

Greetings,
Rafael
-
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/