Re: Dealing with swsusp vs. pmdisk

[Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>]

Hi!

> > I don't really like having two implementations of same code in
> > kernel. There are two ways to deal with it:
> > 
> > * remove pmdisk from kernel
> >   + its easy
> > 
> > * remove swsusp from kernel, rename pmdisk to swsusp, fix all bugs
> >   that were fixed in swsusp but not in pmdisk 
> >   + people seem to like pmdisk code more
> >   - will need some testing in -mm series
> > 
> > Which one do you prefer? I can do both...
> 
> 2.6 is allegedly the stable kernel series, so if swsusp is the more
> stable code base at this point, my vote would be to keep swsusp and
> remove pmdisk from the kernel.  If someone wants to maintain a
> separate BK-tree that contains pmdisk renamed to swsusp and fix all
> the bugs, that's great.  On the other hand, there are a group of

I do not have time for that (and nobody else volunteered). Maintaining either
one is fine, but not both of them.

> So if we can somehow go from *three* idependent software suspend
> implementations implementations to something less than three, and
> increase the testing and effort devoting to remaining software suspend
> code bases, this would be a good thing.
> 
> Pavel, what do you think of the swsusp2 patch, BTW?  My biggest
> complaint about it is that since it's maintained outside of the
> kernel, it's constantly behind about 0.75 revisions behind the latest
> 2.6 release.  The feature set of swsusp2, if they can ever get it
> completely bugfree(tm) is certainly impressive.

My biggest problem with swsusp2 is that it is big. Also last time I looked
it had some ugly hooks sprinkled all over the kernel. Then there are some
features I don't like (graphical screens with progress, escape-to-abort)
and ithasvariableslikethis. OTOH it supports highmem and smp.
				Pavel
-- 
64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=28 ttl=51 time=448769.1 ms