lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jul]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [Suspend2-devel] Re: uswsusp history lesson
    Date
    Hi.

    On Sunday 09 July 2006 23:51, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
    > On Sunday 09 July 2006 03:05, Bojan Smojver wrote:
    > > On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 02:32 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
    > > > I wanted to point out that delay between "okay, I want this gone" and
    > > > the code disappearing from kernel tarball is about a year.
    > >
    > > OK, so the period for this kind of solution(s) to completely go away is
    > > even longer.
    > >
    > > Which brings me to my point. Given that with my proposal you would have
    > > zero involvement with Suspend2 code (i.e. you would not be obligated to
    > > fix/touch/do anything in *any way*), why not give Nigel a go? The man is
    > > obviously willing to do stuff on his own and it won't cost you anything.
    >
    > The problem is he _can't_ do it on his own if he wants the code merged,
    > because for this purpose some people have to review it, and that's not
    > only me or Pavel, but also architecture maintainers, memory management
    > maintainers, and probably some other people too. Moreover, Nigel needs
    > to address the issues raised by the reviewers.
    >
    > > And if it doesn't work out - well, though luck for Nigel.
    >
    > Some people have reviewed some parts of suspend2 recently and there
    > were some comments to address. Now it's up to Nigel to address them or
    > not, and that's only the tip of the iceberg. It'll take quite some time to
    > review the entire suspend2 and address all of the issues that people may
    > have with it. This is a long way to go, but I personally am not against
    > doing it.
    >
    > Now there's the separate problem that we have to share _some_ code.
    > To an absolute minimum, we have to share the freezer code and the
    > code that handles devices, because it's also shared by suspend-to-RAM.
    > The code that handles devices is already shared, but we also _have_ _to_
    > share the freezer code. Therefore, as long as suspend2 adds some code
    > to the freezer, it's not even close to be considerable for merging.

    If Suspend2 added code in a way that broke swsusp, I would agree. But it
    doesn't.

    Regards,

    Nigel
    --
    Nigel, Michelle and Alisdair Cunningham
    5 Mitchell Street
    Cobden 3266
    Victoria, Australia
    [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2006-07-09 23:09    [W:0.026 / U:30.820 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site