[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:0.264 / U:1.200 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site