From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261351AbVGGMIE (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Jul 2005 08:08:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261227AbVGGMFT (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Jul 2005 08:05:19 -0400 Received: from chiark.greenend.org.uk ([193.201.200.170]:6303 "EHLO chiark.greenend.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261282AbVGGMEa (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Jul 2005 08:04:30 -0400 To: ncunningham@cyclades.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [0/48] Suspend2 2.1.9.8 for 2.6.12 In-Reply-To: <1120696047.4860.525.camel@localhost> References: <11206164393426@foobar.com> <20050706082230.GF1412@elf.ucw.cz> <20050706082230.GF1412@elf.ucw.cz> <1120696047.4860.525.camel@localhost> Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 13:04:30 +0100 Message-Id: From: Matthew Garrett Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Nigel Cunningham wrote: > I've been thinking about this some more and wondering whether I should > just replace swsusp. I really don't want to step on your toes though. > What would you like to see happen? Do you implement the entire swsusp userspace interface? If not, removing it probably isn't a reasonable plan without fair warning. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.linux-rutgers.kernel@srcf.ucam.org