Re: [ 01/10] [Suspend2] kernel/power/modules.h

[Nigel Cunningham <nigel@suspend2.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2740 bytes --]

Hi Rafael.

On Thursday 02 February 2006 18:31, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Well, I'd love that to be true, but I don't believe Pavel's going to roll
> > over and say "Ok Nigel. You've got a better implementation. I'll submit
> > patches to remove mine." I might be wrong, and I hope I will be, but I
> > fear they're going to coexist for a while.
>
> First, your code introduces many changes in many parts of the kernel,
> so to merge it you'll have to ask many people for acceptance.

I really must work harder to get rid of that perception. It used to be the 
case, but isn't nowadays. Just about all of suspend2's changes are new files 
in kernel/power and include/<arch>/suspend2.h. The remainder are misc fixes, 
and enhancements like Christoph's todo list.

> Second, swsusp is actively developed, not only by Pavel, and you know that,
> so you could be nicer. ;-)

It was hardly touched for a long time, but that has certainly been changing in 
the last few months. I wasn't meaning to be uncharitable. Sorry for giving 
that impression.

> Still our approach is quite different to yours.  We are focused on keepeing
> the code possibly simple and non-intrusive wrt the other parts of the
> kernel, whereas you seem to concentrate on features (which is not wrong,
> IMO, it's just a different point of view).  We're moving towards the
> implementation of the features like the system image compression and
> encryption,
> graphical progress meters etc. in the user space, which has some
> advantages, and I think this approach is correct for a laptop/desktop
> system.
>
> Its limitation , however, is that it requires a lot of memory for the
> system memory snapshot which may be impractical for systems with limited
> RAM, and that's where your solution may be required.

I'm more concerned about the security implications. I'll freely admit that I 
haven't spent any real time looking at your code, but I'm concerned that the 
additional functionality made available could be used by viruses and the 
like. I'm sure you'd have to be root to do anything, but how could the 
interfaces be misused?

> In conclusion, I see the room for both, as long as the do not conflict, so
> could we please bury the hatched and start working _together_?

I didn't realise I was holding one :). I'm not sure that I agree that there's 
a need for both, but I have no desire whatsoever to act an any sort of nasty 
way. All I want is to help provide Linux users with stable, reliable, 
flexible and fast suspend-to-disk functionality.

Regards,

Nigel
-- 
See our web page for Howtos, FAQs, the Wiki and mailing list info.
http://www.suspend2.net                IRC: #suspend2 on Freenode

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