From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932302AbWG3Mne (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Jul 2006 08:43:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932303AbWG3Mne (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Jul 2006 08:43:34 -0400 Received: from mail.tmr.com ([64.65.253.246]:26334 "EHLO gaimboi.tmr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932302AbWG3Mnd (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Jul 2006 08:43:33 -0400 Message-ID: <44CCACC9.7090702@tmr.com> Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 08:57:45 -0400 From: Bill Davidsen Organization: TMR Associates Inc, Schenectady NY User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.11) Gecko/20050729 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" CC: Pavel Machek , Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: suspend2 merge history [was Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion] References: <44C42B92.40507@xfs.org> <20060728140059.GD4623@ucw.cz> <44CBB5BB.10009@tmr.com> <200607292319.31935.rjw@sisk.pl> In-Reply-To: <200607292319.31935.rjw@sisk.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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?" >Now, please note the swsusp resume code works for me 100% of the time >and I know of many people who use it without any problems. Also I know of >some people for whom suspend2 doesn't work. Please take this into >consideration. > > That's exactly the answer I've been getting for saveral years, "it works for me and my friends," and "try x.y.z release." >Moreover, if the swsusp's resume doesn't work for you and suspend2's resume >does, this probably means that suspend2 contains some driver fixes that >haven't been submitted for merging. > That's been addressed by other people, but the suspend2 patch has been submitted multiple times, if there is some driver fix it certainly has been submitted, just not accepted. -- bill davidsen CTO TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979