Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: uswsusp history lesson

[Pavel Machek]

On Sun 2006-07-09 09:46:06, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-07-08 at 21:25 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 
> > Now there seem to be two possible ways to go:
> > 1) Drop the implementation that already is in the kernel and replace it with
> > the out-of-the-tree one.
> > 2) Improve the one that already is in the kernel incrementally, possibly
> > merging some code from the out-of-the-tree implementation, so that it's as
> > feature-rich as the other one.
> > 
> > Apparently 1) is what Nigel is trying to make happen and 2) is what I'd like
> > to do.
> 
> I didn't get the impression from 1) at all. If anything, Nigel has been
> busy making Suspend2 use swsusp machinery *more*, not less as of
> recently. If he wanted to drop swsusp completely, why would he do
> something like that?
> 
> But, the confusing bit for me here is 2). Given that you're the man for
> uswsusp, why would you want to keep any of the in-kernel
> implementations? The only thing that crosses my mind right now is that
> uswsusp may be a bit heavy on setup, so Linux distros/users that may not
> have the luxury of doing all that would be left without a suspend/resume
> solution. Is that why you want to keep an in-kernel implementation as
> well? Or is there some other reason?

swsusp/uswsusp share 75% or so of code, and we can't really drop
swsusp soon, because that would break existing setups. Warning
year-or-so ahead is needed to do such big changes. Plus you are quite
right n that "heavy to setup" thing.
								Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
-
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/