On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 02:00:12PM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote:

Hi Greg.

On Tue, 2008-06-10 at 20:29 -0700, Greg KH wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 11:05:46AM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote:

quoted

Hi.

Would you consider including TuxOnIce in it?

I do still want to get it merged and would appreciate feedback.

Is the patch "stand-alone", only adding new code in discrete chunks like
a new driver or filesystem would?

The patch I distribute now does have a few parts to it that could be
separated into distinct patches (cryptoapi LZF support, fuse freezer
support), but the bulk of it is TuxOnIce itself, which just adds new
files and inserts the hooks necessary to share the lowlevel code with
[u]swsusp. I think, therefore, it would akin to adding a new driver or
filesystem.

quoted

If not, I don't think it is relevant.  Odds are you want to be your own
series of patches, like we discussed years ago, right?

I don't think I do want to have my own series of patches, because
TuxOnIce doesn't remove or rework swsusp or uswsusp, but sits along side
them. I'm not trying to mutate swsusp into TuxOnIce, because that would
require a complete rework of swsusp from the ground up (TuxOnIce does
everything but the atomic copy/restore and associated prep/cleanup
differently).

Like always, you need to divide your changes up into logical chunks in
order to get them approved and reviewed.  For such a core functionality
like suspend, this is extra important.

I do not think that -staging is proper for this kind of feature at this
point in time.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html