lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Sep]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: pm: Revert swsusp to 2.6.0-test3

> > Ok. In that case, can we remove the '#if 0' blocks entirely, or at least
> > add a big comment on why they are there but disabled?
>
> Like this?

Pavel, I don't even know where to begin, but I will suggest that you check
your sources better. I did apply the patch to revert swsusp to the state
it was in -test3. According to bitkeeper, it's ChangeSet 1.1217.3.31,
which can be viewed here:

http://linus.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.5/patch@1.1217.3.31

It was merged last Thursday night, which means it should have been in
-test5-bk13. The changelog also appeared on the bk-commits-head list.


Next, if you're going to patch my code, do *not* do crap like this:

> +#if 0
> + /* Patrick is likely to s/swsusp_/pmdisk_/ in next release,
> + but #if 0 is needed so that this compiles. */
> if ((error = swsusp_save()))
> goto Done;
>
> @@ -195,6 +198,7 @@
> } else
> pr_debug("PM: Image restored successfully.\n");
> swsusp_free();
> +#endif

I asked you several weeks ago to submit a patch that simply removed the
calls to swsusp. You did not, and you choose here to simply break it, and
add a bullshit comment to it.

If you're going to 'fix' the code, take a minute to submit a patch that
does not add #ifdef's, and with a comment that actually makes sense to
someone other than you.

And, if you're going to submit a patch, please do so against the current
release.


Pat

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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:48    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans