From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261522AbTLNLC5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Dec 2003 06:02:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261774AbTLNLC5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Dec 2003 06:02:57 -0500 Received: from gprs146-5.eurotel.cz ([160.218.146.5]:59008 "EHLO amd.ucw.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261522AbTLNLC4 (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Dec 2003 06:02:56 -0500 Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:03:47 +0100 From: Pavel Machek To: Nigel Cunningham Cc: Michael Frank , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: RFC: Can swsusp 2.0 be merged into the 2.4 tree Message-ID: <20031214110347.GD318@elf.ucw.cz> References: <200312110537.17496.mhf@linuxmail.org> <20031212192252.GA465@elf.ucw.cz> <1071376690.2187.25.camel@laptop-linux> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1071376690.2187.25.camel@laptop-linux> X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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?]