From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161012AbWBTQcC (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Feb 2006 11:32:02 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161019AbWBTQcC (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Feb 2006 11:32:02 -0500 Received: from gprs189-60.eurotel.cz ([160.218.189.60]:64140 "EHLO amd.ucw.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161012AbWBTQb7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Feb 2006 11:31:59 -0500 Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 13:56:29 +0100 From: Pavel Machek To: Matthias Hensler Cc: Sebastian Kgler , kernel list , nigel@suspend2.net, rjw@sisk.pl Subject: Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.) Message-ID: <20060220125629.GD16165@elf.ucw.cz> References: <20060201113710.6320.68289.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <200602091926.38666.nigel@suspend2.net> <20060209232453.GC3389@elf.ucw.cz> <200602110116.57639.sebas@kde.org> <20060211104130.GA28282@kobayashi-maru.wspse.de> <20060218142610.GT3490@openzaurus.ucw.cz> <20060220093911.GB19293@kobayashi-maru.wspse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060220093911.GB19293@kobayashi-maru.wspse.de> X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > It is slightly slower, > > Sorry, but that is just unacceptable. Eh? Slower suspend is not acceptable while slowing runtime system is acceptable? > > > The only con I see is the complexity of the code, but then again, > > > Nigel > > > > ..but thats a big con. > > So why is that? From what I see, most of the code is completly independ > of the rest of the kernel, and just does not affect if it is disabled. > > It won't do any harm to the kernel, and again, Nigel is constantly > improving that situation, so for sure, that is no _big_ con. 14000 lines is a lot of code to maintain. > > > From a user, and contributor, point of view, I really do not > > > understand why not even trying to push a working implementation into > > > mainline (I know that you cannot just apply the Suspend 2 patches > > > and shipping it, > > > > It is less work to port suspend2's features into userspace than to > > make suspend2 acceptable to mainline. Both will mean big changes, and > > may cause some short-term problems, but it will be less pain than > > maintaining suspend2 forever. Please help with the former... > > These "big changes" is something I have a problem with, since it means > to delay a working suspend/resume in Linux for another "short-term" (so > what does it mean: 1 month? six? twelve?). It is painful to get these > things to work reliable, I have followed this for nearly 1.5 years. And > again: today there is a working implementation, so why not merge it and > have something today, and then start working on the other things. swsusp is reliable; suspend2 is faster... If you can't wait six months for uswsusp (which is as fast, today)... help me with uswsusp. Pavel -- Web maintainer for suspend.sf.net (www.sf.net/projects/suspend) wanted...