On Friday 08 May 2009 23:59:31 Nigel Cunningham wrote: > Hi. > > On Fri, 2009-05-08 at 21:44 +0200, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > > Please proceed to Plan B then. > > > > Adding third core code framework to do the same thing is out of question > > (probably same should have been said about adding second one in the past). > > Why? We have plenty of history of having multiple implementations of > things (slub, slab and slob...). With all respect to sl*b developers but things such as sl*b etc. are on whole different level when it comes to complexity because their interactions with weird hardware configurations are quite limited. > > Moreover you will for sure hit much more regressions than you expect > > (I "love" seeing over and over again when people/companies get trapped > > into fallacy of superiority of their _own_ solution). > > That's just wrong. TuxOnIce deliberately doesn't remove any of swsusp or > uswsusp so that there's no chance of users having regressions. It > provides the _option_ of being a drop in replacement for swsusp, but it > doesn't force users to take that option. OK. What is exactly your plan for transition and for swsusp removal then? > Regressions happen at the moment because TuxOnIce isn't included in > vanilla. Users update from one version of stable to the next or from one > version of head to the next and expect TuxOnIce to keep working, and it > doesn't always do that because of changes to the vanilla code that > require an updated patch. I mean [u]swsusp -> TuxOnIce regressions. > > I really wouldn't consider teaming with Rafael to work on "swsuspOnTux" > > (evolving the in-kernel code while re-using chunks of TuxOnIce code) as > > a bad Plan B. It has the potential of resulting in a solution clearly > > superior to all existing ones (TuxOnIce included). > > If there are features in swsusp that TuxOnIce is lacking, or features to > uswsusp that TuxOnIce is lacking, please tell me what they are and I'll > implement them. In saying this, I don't deny that TuxOnIce code can > still be improved - there's a lot I'd still like to do. Instead of new features I would rather see more effort being put into making the _core_ TuxOnIce (I mean patch #8 here) smaller (8 KLOC is still a lot, just to put things into the right perspective the current in-kernel content of kernel/power/ is 5.5 KLOC) and with more documentation inside the code. Thanks, Bart _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
