Home
Reading
Searching
Subscribe
Sponsors
Statistics
Posting
Contact
Spam
Lists
Links
About
Hosting
Filtering
Features Download
Marketing
Archives
FAQ
Blog
 
Gmane
From: Nigel Cunningham <nigel <at> tuxonice.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC] TuxOnIce
Newsgroups: gmane.linux.swsusp.devel
Date: Friday 8th May 2009 01:34:19 UTC (over 8 years ago)
Hi.

On Thu, 2009-05-07 at 23:51 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Thu 2009-05-07 19:42:54, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thursday 07 May 2009, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > > 
> > > > I'd like to submit TuxOnIce for review, with a view to seeking to
get it
> > > > merged, perhaps in 2.6.31 or .32 (depending upon what needs work
before
> > > > it can be merged) and the willingness of those who matter.
> ...
> > > To summarise disadvantages:
> > > 
> > > - only core has 8000 LoC
> > > - it does stuff that can be easily done in userspace
> > >      (and that todays distros _do_ in userspace).
> > > - it duplicates uswsusp functionality.
> > > - compared to [u]swsusp, it received little testing
> > 
> > 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.

Regards,

Nigel
 
CD: 3ms