Hi! > > > > 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. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
