From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161001AbWGIAdO (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Jul 2006 20:33:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161002AbWGIAdO (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Jul 2006 20:33:14 -0400 Received: from gprs189-60.eurotel.cz ([160.218.189.60]:39848 "EHLO amd.ucw.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161001AbWGIAdN (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Jul 2006 20:33:13 -0400 Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 02:32:44 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: Bojan Smojver Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Arjan van de Ven , Sunil Kumar , Avuton Olrich , Olivier Galibert , Jan Rychter , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, suspend2-devel@lists.suspend2.net, grundig , Nigel Cunningham Subject: Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: uswsusp history lesson Message-ID: <20060709003230.GA1753@elf.ucw.cz> References: <20060627133321.GB3019@elf.ucw.cz> <1152377434.3120.69.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <200607082125.12819.rjw@sisk.pl> <1152402366.2584.10.camel@coyote.rexursive.com> <20060708235336.GF2546@elf.ucw.cz> <1152404338.2584.14.camel@coyote.rexursive.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1152404338.2584.14.camel@coyote.rexursive.com> X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060126 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun 2006-07-09 10:18:58, Bojan Smojver wrote: > On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 01:53 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > swsusp/uswsusp share 75% or so of code, and we can't really drop > > swsusp soon, because that would break existing setups. Warning > > year-or-so ahead is needed to do such big changes. Plus you are quite > > right n that "heavy to setup" thing. > > Ah, right. Thanks for clearing that up. > > So, the plan is that in about a year or so there won't be any completely > in-kernel suspend implementations, only uswsusp? No, that was not what I tried to say. Just now, swsusp looks pretty small (~1000 lines), way too many people use it, and it is too handy for debugging. So I'm not trying to kill it just now. When klibc gets into mainline, and pretty much everyone switches to uswsusp, yes, it will be possible to remove swsusp. For now I'm just trying to keep it stable and not add features to it, so it is as easy to maintain as possible. First sign of swsusp going out is going to be /sys/power/resume disappearing. It is really badly documented/dangerous hack, and if your distro uses initrd, anyway.. well you should probably just use swsusp. It would be nice to remove it in year or two. I wanted to point out that delay between "okay, I want this gone" and the code disappearing from kernel tarball is about a year. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html