Re: [Suspend2][ 0/9] Extents support.

Nigel Cunningham
2006-06-27T09:35:18Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1698 bytes --]

Hi.

On Tuesday 27 June 2006 19:26, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > Now I haven't followed the suspend2 vs swsusp debate very closely, but
> > > it seems to me that your biggest problem with getting this merged is
> > > getting consensus on where exactly this is going. Nobody wants two
> > > different suspend modules in the kernel. So there are two options -
> > > suspend2 is deemed the way to go, and it gets merged and replaces
> > > swsusp. Or the other way around - people like swsusp more, and you are
> > > doomed to maintain suspend2 outside the tree.
> >
> > Generally, I agree, although my understanding of Rafael and Pavel's
> > mindset is that swsusp is a dead dog and uswsusp is the way they want to
> > see things go. swsusp is only staying for backwards compatability. If
> > that's the case, perhaps we can just replace swsusp with Suspend2 and let
> > them have their existing interface for uswsusp. Still not ideal, I agree,
> > but it would be progress.
>
> Well, ususpend needs some core functionality to be provided by the kernel,
> like freezing/thawing processes (this is also used by the STR),
> snapshotting the system memory. These should be shared with the in-kernel
> suspend, be it swsusp or suspend2.

If I modify suspend2 so that from now on it replaces swsusp, using noresume,
resume= and echo disk > /sys/power/state in a way that's backward compatible
with swsusp and doesn't interfere with uswsusp support, would you be happy?
IIRC, Pavel has said in the past he wishes I'd just do that, but he's not you
of course.

Regards,

Nigel
--
See http://www.suspend2.net for Howtos, FAQs, mailing
lists, wiki and bugzilla info.

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