Am Mittwoch 25 April 2007 schrieb Linus Torvalds: > And that's a *fundamental* problem. If the STD people cannot even > realize that they have less to do with "suspend" than to "reboot", how > do you ever expect them to get anything to work, and not affect other > things negatively? > > Yeah, I'm down on it. I'm down on it because every person involved with > the whole STD thing seems to have basically zero taste, and a total > inability to work with anybody else.
Hello Linus! I am no kernel developer. But I understand what you are trying to tell here. I agree that suspend to ram and snapshot should be handled differently by drivers. And unlike schedulers - whether it be I/O or process related ones - I think it should be quite easy to settle and decide on *one* implementation for each feature. It least it doesn't look as difficult as deciding on a scheduler which works for all the different workloads to me. I do not believe that the reasons preventing this to happen until now are of pure technical nature. I think snapshotting is a very important feature. I would patch it into my kernels if it was removed. But then I am using suspend2 anyway. Regards, -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7 - 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/
