From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751103AbWGaS4E (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jul 2006 14:56:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751210AbWGaS4E (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jul 2006 14:56:04 -0400 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.182]:12074 "EHLO py-out-1112.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751103AbWGaS4C (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jul 2006 14:56:02 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:in-reply-to:x-mimeole:thread-index; b=iXWVBIDgFAI2+XpjQ3WAd8umK0rm0/K58IGdPXyWq3ryJpGOkVDQniwZZmH8wsYkborBcbLJfdqu3yN5tWh5+/yAiKHsJucJ9z/n4Q+T6Ht4MIM1+PUEyU+plqbK152XzsP3w2PT7RiTgEGuPjkrrV8MW4r2eyOCPdMmQofa4jg= From: "Hua Zhong" To: "'Pavel Machek'" Cc: "'Rafael J. Wysocki'" , "'Bill Davidsen'" , "'Kernel Mailing List'" Subject: RE: suspend2 merge history [was Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion] Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 11:55:58 -0700 Message-ID: <005101c6b4d2$f7506210$493d010a@nuitysystems.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <20060730230757.GA1800@elf.ucw.cz> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 Thread-Index: Aca0LQqKGVCrEV7LS6GCVxr6TuLhmAAL5lkQ Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > Suspend2 patch is open source. You can always take a look. > > swsusp is open source. You can always take a look. And you > can always submit a patch. > > > Moreover, if someone claims suspend2 isn't ready for merge, or the > > Moreover, if someone claims swsusp is broken, they should > attach bugzilla id. Pavel, You can't blame me for not doing these things, because I am not a maintainer. However, you are, and you defend yourself so hard for that position, so if _you_ don't do these things, people complain. > As you said, you do not know what you are talking about. > > He claims s-t-ram is easier than s-t-disk. That means that he did not do his > homework, and did not check the archives on the subject. Oh yeah? Let's check the archives: "I seriously claim that STR _should_ be a lot simpler than suspend-to-disk, because it avoids all the memory management problems. The reason that we support suspend-to-disk but not STR is totally perverse - it's simply that it has been easier to debug, because unlike STR, we can do a "real boot" into a working system, and thus we don't have the debugging problems that the "easy" suspend/resume case has." http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.power-management.general/1884/focus=2105 Maybe it's why he didn't like the STR design you had? Maybe I am still wrong, maybe Linus is wrong too, but you can't attack me not doing my homework. Hua