Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: swsusp / suspend2 reliability

[Nigel Cunningham]

Hi.

On Saturday 08 July 2006 09:25, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > So what Pavel wants can be
> > > translated as 'please use already merged code, it can already do what
> > > you want without further changing kernel'.
> >
> > Like we'd want to use unreviewed, extremely new and risky code for
> > something that happily destroy filesystems.
>
> You can either use suspend2 (14000 lines of unreviewed kernel code,
> old) or uswsusp (~500 lines of reviewed kernel code, ~2000 lines of
> unreviewed userspace code, new).

I was going to keep quiet, but I have to say this: If Suspend2 can rightly be 
called unreviewed code, it's only because you've been too busy flaming etc to 
give it serious review. Personally, though, I don't think it's right to call 
it unreviewed. I've had and applied feedback from lots of people over time 
(hch, Rafael, Pekka(sp?), Nick, Con and Hugh to name just a few). If they 
weren't reviewing the code, what were they doing?

Regards,

Nigel
-- 
Nigel, Michelle and Alisdair Cunningham
5 Mitchell Street
Cobden 3266
Victoria, Australia

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature