Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262068AbTIEEKG (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Sep 2003 00:10:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262092AbTIEEKG (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Sep 2003 00:10:06 -0400 Received: from adsl-64-175-243-181.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net ([64.175.243.181]:6413 "EHLO top.worldcontrol.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262068AbTIEEKB (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Sep 2003 00:10:01 -0400 From: brian@worldcontrol.com Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 21:13:16 -0700 To: Patrick Mochel Cc: Pavel Machek , kernel list Subject: Re: swsusp: revert to 2.6.0-test3 state Message-ID: <20030905041316.GA1886@top.worldcontrol.com> Mail-Followup-To: Brian Litzinger , Patrick Mochel , Pavel Machek , kernel list References: <20030904115824.GD24015@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-No-Archive: yes X-Noarchive: yes User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 926 Lines: 24 On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 08:25:38AM -0700, Patrick Mochel wrote: > 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. And the fork happened in 2.6.0-test4? Some how I thought the 6, being even, meant stable. I am at a complete loss how these test3 to test4 major changes that broke everything meet with the often repeated definitions of how kernel development is to be accomplished. Perhaps I missed something, development kernels include all odd numbers and 6? -- Brian Litzinger - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/