RFC: Can swsusp 2.0 be merged into the 2.4 tree

RFC: Can swsusp 2.0 be merged into the 2.4 tree

[Michael Frank]

swsusp is useful feature also for 2.4. Could this please be merged.

Regards
Michael 

Re: RFC: Can swsusp 2.0 be merged into the 2.4 tree

[Mike Fedyk]

On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 05:39:07AM +0800, Michael Frank wrote:
> swsusp is useful feature also for 2.4. Could this please be merged.

Is it stable?

Re: RFC: Can swsusp 2.0 be merged into the 2.4 tree

[Michael Frank]

On Thursday 11 December 2003 05:54, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 05:39:07AM +0800, Michael Frank wrote:
> > swsusp is useful feature also for 2.4. Could this please be merged.
> 
> Is it stable?
> 
> 

Yes

Re: RFC: Can swsusp 2.0 be merged into the 2.4 tree

[Matt H.]

My personal view is this shouldn't merged. 2.4 shouldn't have more new 
features. That's what 2.6 is for. 

Matt H.

On Wednesday 10 December 2003 02:39 pm, Michael Frank wrote:
> swsusp is useful feature also for 2.4. Could this please be merged.
>
> Regards
> Michael
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: RFC: Can swsusp 2.0 be merged into the 2.4 tree

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> swsusp is useful feature also for 2.4. Could this please be merged.

2.4 has no driver model => swsusp for 2.4 is a hack. Its nice and
working, but it is still a hack.
							Pavel
-- 
When do you have a heart between your knees?
[Johanka's followup: and *two* hearts?]

Re: RFC: Can swsusp 2.0 be merged into the 2.4 tree

[Nigel Cunningham]

That's a bit rough, isn't it Pavel? I fully agree that the power
management support in 2.4 is incomplete (just as is the case in 2.6),
but there is power management support in 2.4, and it is being used.

Regards,

Nigel

On Sat, 2003-12-13 at 08:22, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > swsusp is useful feature also for 2.4. Could this please be merged.
> 
> 2.4 has no driver model => swsusp for 2.4 is a hack. Its nice and
> working, but it is still a hack.
> 							Pavel
-- 
My work on Software Suspend is graciously brought to you by
LinuxFund.org.

Re: RFC: Can swsusp 2.0 be merged into the 2.4 tree

[Pavel Machek]

HI!

> That's a bit rough, isn't it Pavel? I fully agree that the power
> management support in 2.4 is incomplete (just as is the case in 2.6),
> but there is power management support in 2.4, and it is being used.

Okay, I was a bit rough. Anyway pm support in 2.4 can not be made
complete by simply fixing all the drivers (unlike 2.6). I know that it
can be made to work pretty well for a lot of user, but I still do not
think that makes it suitable for 2.4 merge.
								Pavel

> Regards,
> 
> Nigel
> 
> On Sat, 2003-12-13 at 08:22, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> > 
> > > swsusp is useful feature also for 2.4. Could this please be merged.
> > 
> > 2.4 has no driver model => swsusp for 2.4 is a hack. Its nice and
> > working, but it is still a hack.
> > 							Pavel

-- 
When do you have a heart between your knees?
[Johanka's followup: and *two* hearts?]