[lkml]   [2009]   [May]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [TuxOnIce-devel] [RFC] TuxOnIce

    > > > > Actually, I see advantages of working together versus fighting flame wars.
    > > > > Please stop that, I'm not going to take part in it this time.
    > > >
    > > > Ok, so what do you propose? Merging tuxonice into 2.6.32, resulting in
    > > > having swsusp,uswsusp *and* tuxonice to maintain? I hope not.
    > > >
    > > > If we are talking about improving mainline to allow tuxonice
    > > > functionality... then yes, that sounds reasonable.
    > >
    > > I'd like to see use have all three for one or two releases of vanilla,
    > > just to give time to work out any issues that haven't been foreseen.
    > > Once we're all that there are confident there are no regressions with
    > > TuxOnIce, I'd remove swsusp. That's my ideal plan of attack.
    > So this is an idea to replace our current hibernation implementation with
    > TuxOnIce.
    > Which unfortunately I don't agree with.
    > I think we can get _one_ implementation out of the three, presumably keeping
    > the user space interface that will keep the current s2disk binaries happy, by
    > merging TuxOnIce code _gradually_. No "all at once" approach, please.
    > And by "merging" I mean _exactly_ that. Not adding new code and throwing
    > away the old one.
    > While I can work on creating one hibernation implementation by taking the
    > best ideas from all of the implementation we have at hand, I surely won't be
    > working on replacing our current code with TuxOnIce. If that disappoints you,
    > then I'm sorry.

    FWIW, I agree with Rafael here. Improving the current code in
    reasonable steps is the way to go.
    (cesky, pictures)

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-05-09 15:07    [W:0.020 / U:7.572 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site