Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 4 Sep 2003 21:31:05 +0200 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: swsusp: revert to 2.6.0-test3 state |
| |
Hi!
> > No, you have to understand that I don't want to call software_suspend() at > > all. You've made the choice not to accept the swsusp changes, so we're > > forking the code. We will have competing implementations of > > suspend-to-disk in the kernel. > > > > You may keep the interfaces that you had to reach software_suspend(), but > > you may not modify the semantics of my code to call it. At some point, you > > may choose to add hooks to swsusp that abide by the calling semantics of > > the PM core, so that you may use the same infrastructure. > > > > Please send a patch that only removes the calls to swsusp_* from > > pm_{suspend,resume}. That would be a minimal patch. > > Where does this put me? I'm finishing off 1.1 for 2.4 and have a port to > 2.6 in process. I want to get it merged, but how do I go about that now? > > For the record, it's worth merging, I believe. It has a fully year of > extensive testing, support for saving a full (as opposed to minimal) > image of RAM, support for highmem, swap files, full asynchronous I/O, > aborting cleanly from errors, user tuning and a nice interface. I don't > want to see it thrown away, but neither do I want to have a third > option!
It puts you in a better position, AFAICS. When code is rewritten anyway, "don't fix it if it aint broken" is not so important any more -- good for you.
I still hope to avoid two software suspends in 2.6.X.
Pavel
-- Horseback riding is like software... ...vgf orggre jura vgf serr. - 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/
| |