Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 20 Feb 2006 11:15:32 +0100 | From | Matthias Hensler <> | Subject | Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.) |
| |
Hi.
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 05:06:42AM -0500, Lee Revell wrote: > On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 10:39 +0100, Matthias Hensler wrote: > > These "big changes" is something I have a problem with, since it > > means to delay a working suspend/resume in Linux for another > > "short-term" (so what does it mean: 1 month? six? twelve?). It is > > painful to get these things to work reliable, I have followed this > > for nearly 1.5 years. And again: today there is a working > > implementation, so why not merge it and have something today, and > > then start working on the other things. > > It never works that way in practice - if you let broken/suboptimal > code into the kernel then it's a LOT less likely to get fixed later > than if you make fixing it a condition of inclusion because once it's > in there's much less motivation to fix it.
Isn't this what happend with swusp? I tried it of a period of time when it was included in mainline, it was just buggy and nothing much improved.
I totally agree with you that nothing broken should be get into mainline, but I think that Suspend 2 has be proven to be stable, and it is worth to put work on it and to fix the remaining issues instead of just starting from the scratch.
Regards, Matthias - 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/
| |