Hi Len. On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 15:10 -0400, Len Brown wrote: > > 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 for the encouragement. I'm seeking to do this with Rafael, and he's being really good to deal with. Regards, Nigel _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
