Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 05 Sep 2003 07:28:52 +1200 | From | Nigel Cunningham <> | Subject | Re: swsusp: revert to 2.6.0-test3 state |
| |
On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 03:25, Patrick Mochel wrote: > 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!
Regards,
Nigel
-- Nigel Cunningham 495 St Georges Road South, Hastings 4201, New Zealand
You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. -- Romans 5:6, NIV.
- 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/
| |