From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161202AbWGIWaW (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Jul 2006 18:30:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161203AbWGIWaW (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Jul 2006 18:30:22 -0400 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:42950 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161202AbWGIWaU (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Jul 2006 18:30:20 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Nigel Cunningham Subject: Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: uswsusp history lesson Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 00:30:44 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.3 Cc: Bojan Smojver , Pavel Machek , Arjan van de Ven , Sunil Kumar , Avuton Olrich , Olivier Galibert , Jan Rychter , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, suspend2-devel@lists.suspend2.net, grundig References: <20060627133321.GB3019@elf.ucw.cz> <200607092336.44208.rjw@sisk.pl> <200607100746.25043.ncunningham@linuxmail.org> In-Reply-To: <200607100746.25043.ncunningham@linuxmail.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200607100030.44678.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sunday 09 July 2006 23:46, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > On Monday 10 July 2006 07:36, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Sunday 09 July 2006 23:06, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > ]-- snip --[ > > > > > > Now there's the separate problem that we have to share _some_ code. > > > > To an absolute minimum, we have to share the freezer code and the > > > > code that handles devices, because it's also shared by suspend-to-RAM. > > > > The code that handles devices is already shared, but we also _have_ > > > > _to_ share the freezer code. Therefore, as long as suspend2 adds some > > > > code to the freezer, it's not even close to be considerable for > > > > merging. (1) > > > > > > If Suspend2 added code in a way that broke swsusp, I would agree. But it > > > doesn't. > > > > This is not a matter of any breakage or lack thereof. The problem is that > > the freezer is _not_ _an_ _swsusp-only_ _code_. It is used by someone else > > too, and having two different freezers in the tree would be _insane_, > > because too many things depend on that. This would be like having two > > different memory management systems, but at a smaller scale. > > Please don't start doing what Pavel does, imputing to me motives and ideas > that are clearly false. You know that I don't want to have two freezer > implementations - I've never suggested the idea or even thought of it until > you suggested it. I was only trying to explain what I meant in (1). Please don't take it personally, I'm doing my best to make technical points only. > My desire all along has been to improve what's already > there, and I still want to do that. Same here. > I'm sorry that I'm not submitting and resubmitting things as fast as you'd > like. Please try to remember that I'm not a full time programmer. I'm working > for Redhat one day a week and the congregation I serve four days a week. I'm not a full time programmer too. Now I'm just having some more free time than usually, that's all. > Anything I do beyond the one day is purely my time, and I have plenty of > other things to do too. It's not, therefore, that I want to drag my heels. > Rather, I simply don't have the time to get things done as quickly as you and > Pavel seem to be able to. I didn't mean I'd like you to submit/resubmit things quickly. You'll submit them when you're ready, be it in a week or in a month, or later. It's all up to you. :-) Greetings, Rafael