> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Nigel Cunningham <nigel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I think you're putting unrealistic barriers in the way. Does all code > > that goes into the kernel get "reviewed and agreed upon by everyone at > > once"? No! > > Actually, yes... ... > Please stick at this. I agree with Ray, and could not have said it better. I will, however, reference prior art... Greg KH said the exact same thing in 2005 when he met with Nigel and Pavel in Ottawa. >From Patrick Mochel's minutes, available here: http://lwn.net/Articles/144193/ "Suspend2 and Software Suspend There was agreement among the attendees that Nigel Cunningham's suspend-to-disk patches ("Suspend2") are stable and worthwhile to many users. It was suggested that he begin the process of merging his patches with Pavel Machek's in-kernel software suspend implementation. A lengthy discussion followed about strategies for doing so and the philosophy of gradual kernel development. To briefly recap: Suspend2 is very robust and feature rich. Not only does it include a reliable process freezer, it has the ability to compress and encrypt the suspended image and includes a graphical status bar. Although it apparently does receive positive reviews from users, most kernel developers do not care about such eye candy. It was suggested and agreed that Nigel will split the patches (all 69 of them so far) into functional groups, and push them separately. We agreed that the process freezer patches would come first, which should also benefit the existing suspend implementation as well. Next will most likely be the new algorithmic core and eventually the plugin architecture and graphical features. It was heavily stressed that Nigel and Pavel must work together and that the more effort that is put in to making the patches smaller and simpler, the easier it will be to merge this work. " While "suspend2" is now called "tux-on-ice", the same message about how to merge upstream applies in 2009 just as much as it did in 2005. Rafael's reference to ch10 in HPA's articulate 2008 OLS paper is apt http://ols.fedoraproject.org/OLS/Reprints-2008/anvin-reprint.pdf The involved parties must have common motivation to make forward progress. The process should be to cherry-pick the out-of-tree implementation to gradually improve the in-tree-implementation. If we had started that 4 years ago, we'd be done by now. If we don't start it now, we'll be having this same conversation again in 2013. thanks, Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technolgy Center _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
