linux-kernel - Re: suspend2 merge (was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: CFS and suspend2: hang in atomic copy)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200704252340.20378.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2007 23:40:18 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...el.suspend2.net>,
	Christian Hesse <mail@...thworm.de>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>,
	suspend2-devel@...ts.suspend2.net,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: suspend2 merge (was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: CFS and suspend2: hang in atomic copy)

On Wednesday, 25 April 2007 23:30, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > > Please ask anyone who's worked with me if he's had any problem with that.
> > > If anyone say I'm unable to work with anybody else, I'd say you're right.  Till
> > > then, I feel offended.
> > 
> > I'll apologise (and virtually kiss your hairy feet) if you could actually 
> > show me a single implementation that people can agree on.
> > 
> > But until then, I claim that the suspend-to-disk people cannot work with 
> > each other.
> 
> It is not Rafael's fault. Actually it is quite hard to work with
> Nigel, because he implements every feature someone asks for, and wants
> to merge them all :-(. I don't expect to ever agree with Nigel on
> anything important, sorry.
> 
> > And no, "three different implementations" doesn't cut it. Even _two_ is 
> > too much. We need to get *rid* of something, not add more.
> 
> swsusp can be dropped. It is nice -- self contained, extremely easy to
> setup, Andrew likes it. uswsusp has all the features, and pretty
> elegant design. With klibc (or some way to ship userland code with
> kernel, and put it into initramfs or something) we can reasonably drop
> swsusp.

Well, I think we still need it and will need it in the future, at least for
debugging.  Moreover, I think there are many users of it.

Let's not drop things that are helping us. :-)

Greetings,
Rafael
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/