lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Sep]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:48    [W:0.154 / U:0.500 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site