Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)

[Matthias Hensler]

Hi.

On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 05:06:42AM -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 10:39 +0100, Matthias Hensler wrote:
> > These "big changes" is something I have a problem with, since it
> > means to delay a working suspend/resume in Linux for another
> > "short-term" (so what does it mean: 1 month? six? twelve?). It is
> > painful to get these things to work reliable, I have followed this
> > for nearly 1.5 years.  And again: today there is a working
> > implementation, so why not merge it and have something today, and
> > then start working on the other things. 
> 
> It never works that way in practice - if you let broken/suboptimal
> code into the kernel then it's a LOT less likely to get fixed later
> than if you make fixing it a condition of inclusion because once it's
> in there's much less motivation to fix it.

Isn't this what happend with swusp? I tried it of a period of time when
it was included in mainline, it was just buggy and nothing much
improved.

I totally agree with you that nothing broken should be get into
mainline, but I think that Suspend 2 has be proven to be stable, and it
is worth to put work on it and to fix the remaining issues instead of
just starting from the scratch.

Regards,
Matthias
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/