From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030425AbWGHXyJ (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Jul 2006 19:54:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030420AbWGHXyJ (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Jul 2006 19:54:09 -0400 Received: from gprs189-60.eurotel.cz ([160.218.189.60]:26514 "EHLO amd.ucw.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932345AbWGHXyI (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Jul 2006 19:54:08 -0400 Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 01:53:36 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: Bojan Smojver Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Arjan van de Ven , Sunil Kumar , Avuton Olrich , Olivier Galibert , Jan Rychter , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, suspend2-devel@lists.suspend2.net, grundig , Nigel Cunningham Subject: Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: uswsusp history lesson Message-ID: <20060708235336.GF2546@elf.ucw.cz> References: <20060627133321.GB3019@elf.ucw.cz> <1152377434.3120.69.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <200607082125.12819.rjw@sisk.pl> <1152402366.2584.10.camel@coyote.rexursive.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1152402366.2584.10.camel@coyote.rexursive.com> X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060126 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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