* RFC: Can swsusp 2.0 be merged into the 2.4 tree
@ 2003-12-10 21:39 Michael Frank
2003-12-10 21:54 ` Mike Fedyk
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Michael Frank @ 2003-12-10 21:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
swsusp is useful feature also for 2.4. Could this please be merged.
Regards
Michael
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: RFC: Can swsusp 2.0 be merged into the 2.4 tree
2003-12-10 21:39 RFC: Can swsusp 2.0 be merged into the 2.4 tree Michael Frank
@ 2003-12-10 21:54 ` Mike Fedyk
2003-12-11 19:36 ` Michael Frank
2003-12-10 21:55 ` Matt H.
2003-12-12 19:22 ` Pavel Machek
2 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Mike Fedyk @ 2003-12-10 21:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael Frank; +Cc: linux-kernel
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?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: RFC: Can swsusp 2.0 be merged into the 2.4 tree
2003-12-10 21:39 RFC: Can swsusp 2.0 be merged into the 2.4 tree Michael Frank
2003-12-10 21:54 ` Mike Fedyk
@ 2003-12-10 21:55 ` Matt H.
2003-12-12 19:22 ` Pavel Machek
2 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Matt H. @ 2003-12-10 21:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
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/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: RFC: Can swsusp 2.0 be merged into the 2.4 tree
2003-12-10 21:54 ` Mike Fedyk
@ 2003-12-11 19:36 ` Michael Frank
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Michael Frank @ 2003-12-11 19:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mike Fedyk; +Cc: linux-kernel
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: RFC: Can swsusp 2.0 be merged into the 2.4 tree
2003-12-10 21:39 RFC: Can swsusp 2.0 be merged into the 2.4 tree Michael Frank
2003-12-10 21:54 ` Mike Fedyk
2003-12-10 21:55 ` Matt H.
@ 2003-12-12 19:22 ` Pavel Machek
2003-12-14 4:38 ` Nigel Cunningham
2 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Pavel Machek @ 2003-12-12 19:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael Frank; +Cc: linux-kernel
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?]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: RFC: Can swsusp 2.0 be merged into the 2.4 tree
2003-12-12 19:22 ` Pavel Machek
@ 2003-12-14 4:38 ` Nigel Cunningham
2003-12-14 11:03 ` Pavel Machek
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Nigel Cunningham @ 2003-12-14 4:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pavel Machek; +Cc: Michael Frank, Linux Kernel Mailing List
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: RFC: Can swsusp 2.0 be merged into the 2.4 tree
2003-12-14 4:38 ` Nigel Cunningham
@ 2003-12-14 11:03 ` Pavel Machek
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Pavel Machek @ 2003-12-14 11:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nigel Cunningham; +Cc: Michael Frank, Linux Kernel Mailing List
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?]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-12-14 11:02 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-12-10 21:39 RFC: Can swsusp 2.0 be merged into the 2.4 tree Michael Frank
2003-12-10 21:54 ` Mike Fedyk
2003-12-11 19:36 ` Michael Frank
2003-12-10 21:55 ` Matt H.
2003-12-12 19:22 ` Pavel Machek
2003-12-14 4:38 ` Nigel Cunningham
2003-12-14 11:03 ` Pavel Machek
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).