From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1422661AbWF0WTJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:19:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1422648AbWF0WTD (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:19:03 -0400 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:9165 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1422650AbWF0WSk (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:18:40 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: nigel@suspend2.net Subject: Re: [Suspend2][ 0/9] Extents support. Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 00:19:31 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.3 Cc: Jens Axboe , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20060626165404.11065.91833.stgit@nigel.suspend2.net> <200606271126.28898.rjw@sisk.pl> <200606271935.13261.nigel@suspend2.net> In-Reply-To: <200606271935.13261.nigel@suspend2.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200606280019.32045.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Tuesday 27 June 2006 11:35, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > On Tuesday 27 June 2006 19:26, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > Now I haven't followed the suspend2 vs swsusp debate very closely, but > > > > it seems to me that your biggest problem with getting this merged is > > > > getting consensus on where exactly this is going. Nobody wants two > > > > different suspend modules in the kernel. So there are two options - > > > > suspend2 is deemed the way to go, and it gets merged and replaces > > > > swsusp. Or the other way around - people like swsusp more, and you are > > > > doomed to maintain suspend2 outside the tree. > > > > > > Generally, I agree, although my understanding of Rafael and Pavel's > > > mindset is that swsusp is a dead dog and uswsusp is the way they want to > > > see things go. swsusp is only staying for backwards compatability. If > > > that's the case, perhaps we can just replace swsusp with Suspend2 and let > > > them have their existing interface for uswsusp. Still not ideal, I agree, > > > but it would be progress. > > > > Well, ususpend needs some core functionality to be provided by the kernel, > > like freezing/thawing processes (this is also used by the STR), > > snapshotting the system memory. These should be shared with the in-kernel > > suspend, be it swsusp or suspend2. > > If I modify suspend2 so that from now on it replaces swsusp, using noresume, > resume= and echo disk > /sys/power/state in a way that's backward compatible > with swsusp and doesn't interfere with uswsusp support, would you be happy? > IIRC, Pavel has said in the past he wishes I'd just do that, but he's not you > of course. That depends on how it's done. For sure, I wouldn't like it to be done in the "everything at once" manner. Greetings, Rafael