Re: swsusp: revert to 2.6.0-test3 state

[Michael Frank]

On Friday 05 September 2003 03:31, Pavel Machek wrote:
> It puts you in a better position, AFAICS. When code is rewritten
> anyway, "don't fix it if it aint broken" is not so important any
> more -- good for you.
>
> I still hope to avoid two software suspends in 2.6.X.
>
Bah, there may be three implementations now.

On Tuesday 02 September 2003 06:55, Patrick Mochel wrote:
>
> In all actuality, I don't need swsusp. I have a better suspend-to-disk
> implementation that is faster, smaller, and cleaner. I've hesitated
> merging it because I thought swsusp improvements would be more welcome.
> Obviously they're not; or you haven't actually taken the time to read the
> code.
>

This looks like a democratic (darwinistic) approach which will help to get
the best solution for 2.6.

Regards
Michael

-
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/