From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262909AbUCMAsl (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Mar 2004 19:48:41 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262911AbUCMAsl (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Mar 2004 19:48:41 -0500 Received: from thunk.org ([140.239.227.29]:5007 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262909AbUCMAsj (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Mar 2004 19:48:39 -0500 Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 19:47:56 -0500 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: Pavel Machek Cc: Andrew Morton , torvalds@transmeta.com, kernel list Subject: Re: Dealing with swsusp vs. pmdisk Message-ID: <20040313004756.GB5115@thunk.org> Mail-Followup-To: Theodore Ts'o , Pavel Machek , Andrew Morton , torvalds@transmeta.com, kernel list References: <20040312224645.GA326@elf.ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040312224645.GA326@elf.ucw.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to . Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 11:46:45PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > I don't really like having two implementations of same code in > kernel. There are two ways to deal with it: > > * remove pmdisk from kernel > + its easy > > * remove swsusp from kernel, rename pmdisk to swsusp, fix all bugs > that were fixed in swsusp but not in pmdisk > + people seem to like pmdisk code more > - will need some testing in -mm series > > Which one do you prefer? I can do both... 2.6 is allegedly the stable kernel series, so if swsusp is the more stable code base at this point, my vote would be to keep swsusp and remove pmdisk from the kernel. If someone wants to maintain a separate BK-tree that contains pmdisk renamed to swsusp and fix all the bugs, that's great. On the other hand, there are a group of people of are busy doing something very similar with swsusp2, and that effort seems to have a fair number of people working on the patch and testing it. So if we can somehow go from *three* idependent software suspend implementations implementations to something less than three, and increase the testing and effort devoting to remaining software suspend code bases, this would be a good thing. Pavel, what do you think of the swsusp2 patch, BTW? My biggest complaint about it is that since it's maintained outside of the kernel, it's constantly behind about 0.75 revisions behind the latest 2.6 release. The feature set of swsusp2, if they can ever get it completely bugfree(tm) is certainly impressive. - Ted