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

[Pavel Machek]

On Po 20-02-06 14:51:55, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 08:12:42PM +0100, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> > > I'd love to have Nigel helping me and kernel, but he's not
> > > interested. He wants suspend2 merged, he does not want better suspend
> > > in kernel.
> > 
> > If you made comments like that about me on a public mailing list I
> > would feel it would be very difficult trying to cooperate with you.
> > 
> > Please reconsider your public replies regarding this already delicate
> > issue a bit more before you criticize people who has spent a great
> > deal of time trying to get a working solution.
> 
> I'm going to have to second Henrik here.  Pavel, there are times when
> you are starting to sound almost as strident as our cdrecord
> "friend".

Heh, I hope I'm not that bad.

> Maybe you feel you are in a power position because your code happened
> to enter the kernel first, so you few you can have veto power over all
> other contenders.  It sometimes works that way, but only up to a

Unfortunately, I do not need to veto suspend2. It is so complex that
it vetoes itself. Last time akpm stopped it, IIRC.

You are welcome to take a look at those patches and try to get them
into suitable form. But please don't compare me with Joerg unless you
seen the patches.

> point.  The fact of the matter is, Nigel code's *works* and swsusp has
> been at best slow and painful and unreliable.  And while your been

Painful and unreliable? Yep, it slow, at least it does not make rest
of kernel slower. We are adressing "slow" with uswsusp...
								Pavel
-- 
Web maintainer for suspend.sf.net (www.sf.net/projects/suspend) wanted...
-
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/