Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: uswsusp history lesson

[Nigel Cunningham <ncunningham@linuxmail.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1338 bytes --]

Hi.

On Sunday 09 July 2006 05:48, Sunil Kumar wrote:
> > Now there seem to be two possible ways to go:
> > 1) Drop the implementation that already is in the kernel and replace it
> > with
> > the out-of-the-tree one.
> > 2) Improve the one that already is in the kernel incrementally, possibly
> > merging some code from the out-of-the-tree implementation, so that it's
> > as feature-rich as the other one.
> >
> > Apparently 1) is what Nigel is trying to make happen and 2) is what I'd
> > like
> > to do.
>
> Is that really true, Nigel, that you want 1)?

I would be happy for suspend2 and swsusp to coexist for at least at while. 
That's why I've made suspend2 play nicely with swsusp ever since I ported it 
to 2.6.

> Is it really impossible to have the third possbility of both the
> implementations in kernel at the same time? If Nigel has a patch against mm
> series, that means that he has taken care of all the conflicts. Are we
> missing something here?

I just about have one. I just have one issue (the removal of name_to_dev_t by 
klibc) to address. A really simple or short-term solution would be to re-add 
it, but I want to think the issue through more carefully first.

Regards,

Nigel
-- 
Nigel, Michelle and Alisdair Cunningham
5 Mitchell Street
Cobden 3266
Victoria, Australia

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]