From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932775AbWF1L2l (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jun 2006 07:28:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932777AbWF1L2l (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jun 2006 07:28:41 -0400 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.168]:52436 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932775AbWF1L2k (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jun 2006 07:28:40 -0400 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 07:28:38 -0400 From: "Rahul Karnik" To: nigel@suspend2.net Subject: Re: [Suspend2][ 0/9] Extents support. Cc: "Jens Axboe" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <200606271739.13453.nigel@suspend2.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20060626165404.11065.91833.stgit@nigel.suspend2.net> <200606271539.29540.nigel@suspend2.net> <20060627070505.GH22071@suse.de> <200606271739.13453.nigel@suspend2.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 6/27/06, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > Suspend2 is a > reimplementation of swsusp, not a series of incremental modifications. It > uses completely different methods for writing the image, storing the metadata > and so on. Until recently, the only thing it shared with swsusp was the > refrigerator and driver model calls, and even now the sharing of lowlevel > code is only a tiny fraction of all that is done. This is something I don't understand. Why can you not submit patches that simply do things like "change method for writing image" and reduce the difference between suspend2 and mainline? It may be more work, but I think you will find that incremental changes are a lot easier for people to review and merge. Right now, it seems like Linus and Andrew have only two choices: 1. Ignore your submission 2. Merge all of suspend2 We have had complete reworks of entire subsystems in the 2.6 series without problems, simply because the effort was taken to make the changes incrementally. > Could I ask what might be a dumb question in this regard - why isn't Reiser4 > going through the same process? reiser4 has been in -mm for quite a while without being merged into mainline. I don't think you want the same fate for suspend2. Finally, I just want to say I appreciate all the effort you (and Pavel and Rafael) are putting into suspend-to-disk. It is critical functionality for me and I think we can get both a well functioning and maintainable implementation. Thanks, Rahul -- Rahul Karnik rahul@genebrew.com