Messages in this thread | | | From | Michael Frank <> | Subject | Re: swsusp: revert to 2.6.0-test3 state | Date | Fri, 5 Sep 2003 13:53:02 +0800 |
| |
On Friday 05 September 2003 12:13, brian@worldcontrol.com wrote: > On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 08:25:38AM -0700, 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. > > And the fork happened in 2.6.0-test4? > > Some how I thought the 6, being even, meant stable.
Yes _without_ -test it's stable, with -test it its still testing...
> > I am at a complete loss how these test3 to test4 major changes > that broke everything meet with the often repeated definitions > of how kernel development is to be accomplished.
It did not break anything but historic dysfunctional - I know because I tested several releases between 2.5.6x and 2.6-test1.
> > Perhaps I missed something, development kernels include all > odd numbers and 6?
You look at it very black and white. If you like to insist, please consider the recall of a tire on some SUV which kept on flipping over as an example of fixing something in a less than ideal manner. If it is broken, it must be fixed to protect and satisfy.
Of course, I remember that some people say it wasn't the tire but the suspension being too hard which resulted in recommending low-inflation of the tire. This turned out to be under-inflation in practice, leading to the tire to fail due to mechanical over-stress and over-heating... Poor tire - other tyres survive this kind of abuse by the typical consumer every day. ;)
Regards Michael
- 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/
| |