[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070425214601.GH17387@elf.ucw.cz>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 23:46:01 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
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)
Hi!
> > > 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. :-)
Yes, it is very nice for debugging. But if I _had_ to choose, I'd
rather remove swsusp than uswsusp.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists