On Thursday, 26 April 2007 22:08, Nigel Cunningham wrote: [--snip--] > > And no, I'm not saying that my suggestion is the only way to do it. Go > > wild. But the *current* situation is just broken. Three different things, > > none of which people can agree on. I'd *much* rather see a conceptually > > simpler approach that then required, but even more important is that right > > now people aren't even discussing alternatives, they're just pushing one > > of the three existing things, and that's simply not viable. Because I'm > > not merging another one. > > > > In fact, I personally feel that I shouldn't even have merged > > userspace-swsusp, but if Andrew thinks it needs to be merged, my personal > > feelings simply don't matter that much. I have to trust people. But yes, > > as far as *I* am personally concerned, I think it was a mistake to merge > > it. > > Perhaps you should try to make an alternative yourself instead of > pushing us into making something we don't believe will work (my case) or > have already done but in a way you don't like (Rafael). Don't talk about > Pavel cutting code. He's just acking/nacking what Rafael sends him.
Well, I think that much of what Linus is saying indicates that he hasn't tried to write any such thing himself. ;-) Anyway, I'm tired of all this thing. Really. I've just been trying to make things _work_ more-or-less reliably in a way that Pavel liked and I really didn't know that much about the kernel when I started. In fact, I started as a user who needed certain functionality from the kernel and that was not there at the time. I've made some mistakes because of that (like the definitions of the ioctl numbers in suspend.h - this was just a rookie mistake, and I'm ashamed of it, but _nobody_ catched it, although I believe many people were looking at the patch). Now that I know much more than before, I can say I agree with Linus on his opinion about the separation of s2ram form the snapshot/restore functionality (I'll call it 'hibernation' for simplicity from now on). It should be done, because it would make things simpler and cleaner. Still, it will be difficult to do without screwing users en masse and that's my main concern here. I don't agree that we don't need the tasks freezer for suspending and hibernation. We need it, because we need to be sure that the (other) tasks will not get us in the way, and that also applies to kernel threads (and I don't think the tasks freezer is 'screwing' them, BTW). I agree that the userland interface for swsusp is not very nice and I'm going to do my best to clean that up. I hope that someone will help me, but if not, then that's fine. OTOH, it's difficult, if not impossible, to do a userland-driven hibernation in a completely clean way. I've tried that and I'm not exactly satisfied with the result, although it works and some distros use it. I wouldn't have done it again, but then I'm going to support the existing users, as I promised. Now, I think that the hibernation should better be done completely in the kernel, because that's just conceptually simpler, although some data exchange with the user land may be acceptable for some optional fancy stuff. I'm also tierd of the endless "to merge or not to merge suspend2" discussions that just lead to nowhere. For these reasons I declare that I'm ready to cooperate with Nigel on integrating as much of suspend2 as reasonably possible into the existing infrastructure, under the following conditions: - we don't remove the existing user-visible interfaces - we work on one piece of code at a time - we avoid code duplication, as much as possible - we avoid using open-coded things, if possible - if we don't agree on something, we ask someone wiser (volunteers welcome ;-)) If that's acceptable, we can start tomorrow. In the process, we can try to separate the hibernation code paths from the s2ram ones, but that will require a lot of knowledge about things that neither me nor Nigel, AFAICT, are very familiar with, like writing device drivers. 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/
