linux-kernel - Re: [TuxOnIce-devel] [RFC] TuxOnIce

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]

Date:	Sat, 9 May 2009 15:03:38 +0200
From:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	nigel@...onice.net, linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	tuxonice-devel@...ts.tuxonice.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [TuxOnIce-devel] [RFC] TuxOnIce

Hi!

> > > > Actually, I see advantages of working together versus fighting flame wars.
> > > > Please stop that, I'm not going to take part in it this time.
> > > 
> > > Ok, so what do you propose? Merging tuxonice into 2.6.32, resulting in
> > > having swsusp,uswsusp *and* tuxonice to maintain? I hope not.
> > > 
> > > If we are talking about improving mainline to allow tuxonice
> > > functionality... then yes, that sounds reasonable.
> > 
> > I'd like to see use have all three for one or two releases of vanilla,
> > just to give time to work out any issues that haven't been foreseen.
> > Once we're all that there are confident there are no regressions with
> > TuxOnIce, I'd remove swsusp. That's my ideal plan of attack.
> 
> So this is an idea to replace our current hibernation implementation with
> TuxOnIce.
> 
> Which unfortunately I don't agree with.
> 
> I think we can get _one_ implementation out of the three, presumably keeping
> the user space interface that will keep the current s2disk binaries happy, by
> merging TuxOnIce code _gradually_.  No "all at once" approach, please.
> 
> And by "merging" I mean _exactly_ that.  Not adding new code and throwing
> away the old one.
> 
> While I can work on creating one hibernation implementation by taking the
> best ideas from all of the implementation we have at hand, I surely won't be
> working on replacing our current code with TuxOnIce.  If that disappoints you,
> then I'm sorry.

FWIW, I agree with Rafael here. Improving the current code in
reasonable steps is the way to go.
									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/