Re: swsusp: revert to 2.6.0-test3 state

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> > I'm doing return -EAGAIN so I can call driver model myself, and so
> > that your code does not proceed with stopping tasks/etc after I've
> > done full suspend/resume cycle.
> > 
> > I see your point about S4. I want to use as little as power/main.c
> > infrastructure as possible for now, and this seems like the way to do
> > it.
> > 
> > Okay, it seems that I can move this to pm_suspend, and it will look better.
> 
> No, you have to understand that I don't want to call software_suspend() at 
> all. You've made the choice not to accept the swsusp changes, so we're 
> forking the code. We will have competing implementations of 
> suspend-to-disk in the kernel. 

I've said I want the patch reverted. I still want that, because you
changed way too quickly with too little testing. That does not mean
I'm not going to accept your patches in future. (In fact, my plan is
to  get -test3 version of swsusp back for -test5, then fix up driver
model/swsusp until we have -test3 functionality back, then start
taking your patches). 

Of course, that is going to be easier with your cooperation.
								Pavel
-- 
Horseback riding is like software...
...vgf orggre jura vgf serr.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/