From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161153AbWGIVGq (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Jul 2006 17:06:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161149AbWGIVGq (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Jul 2006 17:06:46 -0400 Received: from pop5-1.us4.outblaze.com ([205.158.62.125]:42689 "HELO pop5-1.us4.outblaze.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1161153AbWGIVGp (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Jul 2006 17:06:45 -0400 From: Nigel Cunningham To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: uswsusp history lesson Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 07:06:38 +1000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 Cc: Bojan Smojver , Pavel Machek , Arjan van de Ven , Sunil Kumar , Avuton Olrich , Olivier Galibert , Jan Rychter , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, suspend2-devel@lists.suspend2.net, grundig References: <20060627133321.GB3019@elf.ucw.cz> <1152407148.2598.10.camel@coyote.rexursive.com> <200607091551.18456.rjw@sisk.pl> In-Reply-To: <200607091551.18456.rjw@sisk.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1773496.5vK2jvxWB4"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200607100706.45789.ncunningham@linuxmail.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --nextPart1773496.5vK2jvxWB4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Hi. On Sunday 09 July 2006 23:51, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Sunday 09 July 2006 03:05, Bojan Smojver wrote: > > On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 02:32 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > I wanted to point out that delay between "okay, I want this gone" and > > > the code disappearing from kernel tarball is about a year. > > > > OK, so the period for this kind of solution(s) to completely go away is > > even longer. > > > > Which brings me to my point. Given that with my proposal you would have > > zero involvement with Suspend2 code (i.e. you would not be obligated to > > fix/touch/do anything in *any way*), why not give Nigel a go? The man is > > obviously willing to do stuff on his own and it won't cost you anything. > > The problem is he _can't_ do it on his own if he wants the code merged, > because for this purpose some people have to review it, and that's not > only me or Pavel, but also architecture maintainers, memory management > maintainers, and probably some other people too. Moreover, Nigel needs > to address the issues raised by the reviewers. > > > And if it doesn't work out - well, though luck for Nigel. > > Some people have reviewed some parts of suspend2 recently and there > were some comments to address. Now it's up to Nigel to address them or > not, and that's only the tip of the iceberg. It'll take quite some time = to > review the entire suspend2 and address all of the issues that people may > have with it. This is a long way to go, but I personally am not against > doing it. > > Now there's the separate problem that we have to share _some_ code. > To an absolute minimum, we have to share the freezer code and the > code that handles devices, because it's also shared by suspend-to-RAM. > The code that handles devices is already shared, but we also _have_ _to_ > share the freezer code. Therefore, as long as suspend2 adds some code > to the freezer, it's not even close to be considerable for merging. If Suspend2 added code in a way that broke swsusp, I would agree. But it=20 doesn't. Regards, Nigel =2D-=20 Nigel, Michelle and Alisdair Cunningham 5 Mitchell Street Cobden 3266 Victoria, Australia --nextPart1773496.5vK2jvxWB4 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBEsW/lN0y+n1M3mo0RAqnXAJ9qLNn2kM+U+LyyHm1KM+jNCTbGUQCeI9GS FX3KkKm1w0cRwG37v46uP2g= =TYNn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1773496.5vK2jvxWB4--