From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263083AbUCMMfY (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Mar 2004 07:35:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263085AbUCMMfY (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Mar 2004 07:35:24 -0500 Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.31.123]:51595 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263083AbUCMMfL (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Mar 2004 07:35:11 -0500 Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 13:28:19 +0100 From: Pavel Machek To: "Theodore Ts'o" , Pavel Machek , Andrew Morton , torvalds@osdl.com, kernel list Subject: Re: Dealing with swsusp vs. pmdisk Message-ID: <20040313122819.GB3084@openzaurus.ucw.cz> References: <20040312224645.GA326@elf.ucw.cz> <20040313004756.GB5115@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040313004756.GB5115@thunk.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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