Re: swsusp: revert to 2.6.0-test3 state

[Nigel Cunningham <ncunningham@clear.net.nz>]

On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 03:25, Patrick Mochel wrote:
> No, you have to understand that I don't want to call software_suspend() at 
> all. You've made the choice not to accept the swsusp changes, so we're 
> forking the code. We will have competing implementations of 
> suspend-to-disk in the kernel. 
> 
> You may keep the interfaces that you had to reach software_suspend(), but
> you may not modify the semantics of my code to call it. At some point, you 
> may choose to add hooks to swsusp that abide by the calling semantics of 
> the PM core, so that you may use the same infrastructure.
> 
> Please send a patch that only removes the calls to swsusp_* from 
> pm_{suspend,resume}. That would be a minimal patch. 

Where does this put me? I'm finishing off 1.1 for 2.4 and have a port to
2.6 in process. I want to get it merged, but how do I go about that now?

For the record, it's worth merging, I believe. It has a fully year of
extensive testing, support for saving a full (as opposed to minimal)
image of RAM, support for highmem, swap files, full asynchronous I/O,
aborting cleanly from errors, user tuning and a nice interface. I don't
want to see it thrown away, but neither do I want to have a third
option!

Regards,

Nigel

-- 
Nigel Cunningham
495 St Georges Road South, Hastings 4201, New Zealand

You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless,
Christ died for the ungodly.
	-- Romans 5:6, NIV.