From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754467AbZEINDx (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 May 2009 09:03:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753324AbZEINDp (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 May 2009 09:03:45 -0400 Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.26.193]:42238 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751553AbZEINDo (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 May 2009 09:03:44 -0400 Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 15:03:38 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: nigel@tuxonice.net, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, tuxonice-devel@lists.tuxonice.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [TuxOnIce-devel] [RFC] TuxOnIce Message-ID: <20090509130338.GB10859@elf.ucw.cz> References: <1241620755-22133-1-git-send-email-nigel@tuxonice.net> <20090507215112.GC14611@elf.ucw.cz> <1241746459.19600.246.camel@nigel-laptop> <200905081611.41865.rjw@sisk.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200905081611.41865.rjw@sisk.pl> X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > > > Actually, I see advantages of working together versus fighting flame wars. > > > > Please stop that, I'm not going to take part in it this time. > > > > > > Ok, so what do you propose? Merging tuxonice into 2.6.32, resulting in > > > having swsusp,uswsusp *and* tuxonice to maintain? I hope not. > > > > > > If we are talking about improving mainline to allow tuxonice > > > functionality... then yes, that sounds reasonable. > > > > I'd like to see use have all three for one or two releases of vanilla, > > just to give time to work out any issues that haven't been foreseen. > > Once we're all that there are confident there are no regressions with > > TuxOnIce, I'd remove swsusp. That's my ideal plan of attack. > > So this is an idea to replace our current hibernation implementation with > TuxOnIce. > > Which unfortunately I don't agree with. > > I think we can get _one_ implementation out of the three, presumably keeping > the user space interface that will keep the current s2disk binaries happy, by > merging TuxOnIce code _gradually_. No "all at once" approach, please. > > And by "merging" I mean _exactly_ that. Not adding new code and throwing > away the old one. > > While I can work on creating one hibernation implementation by taking the > best ideas from all of the implementation we have at hand, I surely won't be > working on replacing our current code with TuxOnIce. If that disappoints you, > then I'm sorry. FWIW, I agree with Rafael here. Improving the current code in reasonable steps is the way to go. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html