On Wednesday, 25 April 2007 23:30, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > Please ask anyone who's worked with me if he's had any problem with that. > > > If anyone say I'm unable to work with anybody else, I'd say you're right. > > > Till > > > then, I feel offended. > > > > I'll apologise (and virtually kiss your hairy feet) if you could actually > > show me a single implementation that people can agree on. > > > > But until then, I claim that the suspend-to-disk people cannot work with > > each other. > > It is not Rafael's fault. Actually it is quite hard to work with > Nigel, because he implements every feature someone asks for, and wants > to merge them all :-(. I don't expect to ever agree with Nigel on > anything important, sorry. > > > And no, "three different implementations" doesn't cut it. Even _two_ is > > too much. We need to get *rid* of something, not add more. > > swsusp can be dropped. It is nice -- self contained, extremely easy to > setup, Andrew likes it. uswsusp has all the features, and pretty > elegant design. With klibc (or some way to ship userland code with > kernel, and put it into initramfs or something) we can reasonably drop > swsusp.
Well, I think we still need it and will need it in the future, at least for debugging. Moreover, I think there are many users of it. Let's not drop things that are helping us. :-) Greetings, Rafael - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
