Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 9 Jul 2006 01:53:36 +0200 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: uswsusp history lesson |
| |
On Sun 2006-07-09 09:46:06, Bojan Smojver wrote: > 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?
swsusp/uswsusp share 75% or so of code, and we can't really drop swsusp soon, because that would break existing setups. Warning year-or-so ahead is needed to do such big changes. Plus you are quite right n that "heavy to setup" thing. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html - 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/
| |