Re: [TuxOnIce-devel] [RFC] TuxOnIce

[Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>]

On Friday 08 May 2009 23:59:31 Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi.
> 
> On Fri, 2009-05-08 at 21:44 +0200, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > Please proceed to Plan B then.
> > 
> > Adding third core code framework to do the same thing is out of question
> > (probably same should have been said about adding second one in the past).
> 
> Why? We have plenty of history of having multiple implementations of
> things (slub, slab and slob...).

With all respect to sl*b developers but things such as sl*b etc. are on
whole different level when it comes to complexity because their interactions
with weird hardware configurations are quite limited.

> > Moreover you will for sure hit much more regressions than you expect
> > (I "love" seeing over and over again when people/companies get trapped
> > into fallacy of superiority of their _own_ solution).
> 
> That's just wrong. TuxOnIce deliberately doesn't remove any of swsusp or
> uswsusp so that there's no chance of users having regressions. It
> provides the _option_ of being a drop in replacement for swsusp, but it
> doesn't force users to take that option.

OK.  What is exactly your plan for transition and for swsusp removal then?

> Regressions happen at the moment because TuxOnIce isn't included in
> vanilla. Users update from one version of stable to the next or from one
> version of head to the next and expect TuxOnIce to keep working, and it
> doesn't always do that because of changes to the vanilla code that
> require an updated patch.

I mean [u]swsusp -> TuxOnIce regressions.

> > I really wouldn't consider teaming with Rafael to work on "swsuspOnTux"
> > (evolving the in-kernel code while re-using chunks of TuxOnIce code) as
> > a bad Plan B.  It has the potential of resulting in a solution clearly
> > superior to all existing ones (TuxOnIce included).
> 
> If there are features in swsusp that TuxOnIce is lacking, or features to
> uswsusp that TuxOnIce is lacking, please tell me what they are and I'll
> implement them. In saying this, I don't deny that TuxOnIce code can
> still be improved - there's a lot I'd still like to do.

Instead of new features I would rather see more effort being put into making
the _core_ TuxOnIce (I mean patch #8 here) smaller (8 KLOC is still a lot,
just to put things into the right perspective the current in-kernel content
of kernel/power/ is 5.5 KLOC) and with more documentation inside the code.

Thanks,
Bart