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

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>]

Hi,

On Tuesday 27 June 2006 11:35, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> 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.

That depends on how it's done.  For sure, I wouldn't like it to be done in the
"everything at once" manner.

Greetings,
Rafael