From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750876AbWG3Oe5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Jul 2006 10:34:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750861AbWG3Oe5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Jul 2006 10:34:57 -0400 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:57477 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750847AbWG3Oe4 (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Jul 2006 10:34:56 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Bill Davidsen Subject: Re: suspend2 merge history [was Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion] Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 16:34:11 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.3 Cc: Pavel Machek , Kernel Mailing List References: <44C42B92.40507@xfs.org> <200607292319.31935.rjw@sisk.pl> <44CCACC9.7090702@tmr.com> In-Reply-To: <44CCACC9.7090702@tmr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200607301634.11354.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sunday 30 July 2006 14:57, Bill Davidsen wrote: > Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > >On Saturday 29 July 2006 21:23, Bill Davidsen wrote: > > > > > >>Pavel Machek wrote: > >> > >> > >>>On Fri 28-07-06 01:22:49, Olivier Galibert wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 11:42:25PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>So we have 1 submission for review in 11/2004 and 1 submission for -mm > >>>>>merge in 2006, right? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>Wrong. I gave a list of dates at the beginning of the month, do you > >>>>think I threw dice to get them? > >>>> > >>>>And could you explain, as suspend maintainer for the linux kernel, how > >>>>come code submitted for the first time two years ago and with a much > >>>>better track record than the in-kernel one is still not in? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>Because Nigel has too much of code to start with, and refuses to fix > >>>his design because it would invalidate all the stabilization work. > >>> > >>> > >>Why should he invalidate his stabilization work, and what's in need of > >>fixing? The suspend in the kernel is great, but suspend2 includes both > >>suspend and working resume code as well. > >> > >> > >>>Plus Nigel did not do very good job with submitting those patches. > >>> > >>> > >>They apply, they work. What's not very good about that? Is this being > >>blocked because of a spelling error, or did he mess up the indenting on > >>"signed off by" or what? I realize you may have something other than the > >>download version, but it's been years now. > >> > >>I would like to see the working suspend (suspend2) in the kernel, and > >>users wanting to debug the resume stuff currently in the kernel could > >>get it under EXPERIMENTAL or some such. > >> > >You probably don't realize how offensive this is. > > > >Actually some people have been working really hard to make the in-kernel > >code work and you could just respect that. > > > By respect I take it you mean "don't call attention to the fact that it > doesn't work for many people?" Sorry, you won't get anywhere by insulting people. If you want to call attention to a problem, please file a bug report. Greetings, Rafael