On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 02:00:12PM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > Hi Greg. > > On Tue, 2008-06-10 at 20:29 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 11:05:46AM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > > Hi. > > > > > > Would you consider including TuxOnIce in it? > > > > > > I do still want to get it merged and would appreciate feedback. > > > > Is the patch "stand-alone", only adding new code in discrete chunks like > > a new driver or filesystem would? > > ?The patch I distribute now does have a few parts to it that could be > separated into distinct patches (cryptoapi LZF support, fuse freezer > support), but the bulk of it is TuxOnIce itself, which just adds new > files and inserts the hooks necessary to share the lowlevel code with > [u]swsusp. I think, therefore, it would akin to adding a new driver or > filesystem. > > > If not, I don't think it is relevant. Odds are you want to be your own > > series of patches, like we discussed years ago, right? > > I don't think I do want to have my own series of patches, because > TuxOnIce doesn't remove or rework swsusp or uswsusp, but sits along side > them. I'm not trying to mutate swsusp into TuxOnIce, because that would > require a complete rework of swsusp from the ground up (TuxOnIce does > everything but the atomic copy/restore ?and associated prep/cleanup > differently). Like always, you need to divide your changes up into logical chunks in order to get them approved and reviewed. For such a core functionality like suspend, this is extra important. I do not think that -staging is proper for this kind of feature at this point in time. thanks, greg k-h
