On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:19:59 +1000 Nigel Cunningham <ncunningham@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi. > > On Friday 21 September 2007 11:06:23 Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:24:34 +1000 Nigel Cunningham > <nigel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Hi Andrew. > > > > > > On Thursday 20 September 2007 20:09:41 Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > Seems like good enough for -mm to me. > > > > > > > > Pavel > > > > > > Andrew, if I recall correctly, you said a while ago that you didn't want > > > another hibernation implementation in the vanilla kernel. If you're going > to > > > consider merging this kexec code, will you also please consider merging > > > TuxOnIce? > > > > > > > The theory is that kexec-based hibernation will mainly use preexisting > > kexec code and will permit us to delete the existing hibernation > > implementation. > > > > That's different from replacing it. > > TuxOnIce doesn't remove the existing implementation either. It can > transparently replace it, but you can enable/disable that at compile time. Right. So we end up with two implementations in-tree. Whereas kexec-based-hibernation leads us to having zero implementations in-tree. See, it's different. _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
