From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755722AbXD0Mge (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Apr 2007 08:36:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755668AbXD0Mge (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Apr 2007 08:36:34 -0400 Received: from mondschein.lichtvoll.de ([194.150.191.11]:2874 "EHLO mail.lichtvoll.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755722AbXD0Mgd (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Apr 2007 08:36:33 -0400 From: Martin Steigerwald To: suspend2-devel@lists.suspend2.net Subject: Re: suspend2 merge Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 14:36:26 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 Cc: Linus Torvalds , Adrian Bunk , Nick Piggin , Mike Galbraith , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Con Kolivas , Pavel Machek , Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , Arjan van de Ven References: <20070419070437.GA25211@elte.hu> <20070425192512.GZ3468@stusta.de> (sfid-20070425_233551_691811_D5D99E0D) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200704271436.27353.Martin@lichtvoll.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Am Mittwoch 25 April 2007 schrieb Linus Torvalds: > And that's a *fundamental* problem. If the STD people cannot even > realize that they have less to do with "suspend" than to "reboot", how > do you ever expect them to get anything to work, and not affect other > things negatively? > > Yeah, I'm down on it. I'm down on it because every person involved with > the whole STD thing seems to have basically zero taste, and a total > inability to work with anybody else. Hello Linus! I am no kernel developer. But I understand what you are trying to tell here. I agree that suspend to ram and snapshot should be handled differently by drivers. And unlike schedulers - whether it be I/O or process related ones - I think it should be quite easy to settle and decide on *one* implementation for each feature. It least it doesn't look as difficult as deciding on a scheduler which works for all the different workloads to me. I do not believe that the reasons preventing this to happen until now are of pure technical nature. I think snapshotting is a very important feature. I would patch it into my kernels if it was removed. But then I am using suspend2 anyway. Regards, -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7