From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756977Ab0JAWQJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Oct 2010 18:16:09 -0400 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:36571 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751110Ab0JAWQI (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Oct 2010 18:16:08 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Nigel Cunningham Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/23] Hibernation: Split compression support out. Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 00:15:10 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.36-rc6-rjw+; KDE/4.4.4; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Linux PM , LKML , "TuxOnIce-devel" References: <1285566238-10966-1-git-send-email-nigel@tuxonice.net> <201010012328.09892.rjw@sisk.pl> <4CA65684.1050500@tuxonice.net> In-Reply-To: <4CA65684.1050500@tuxonice.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201010020015.10749.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Friday, October 01, 2010, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > Hi Rafael. Hi, > On 02/10/10 07:28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Monday, September 27, 2010, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > >> Hi. > >> > >> On 28/09/10 06:27, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >>> On Monday, September 27, 2010, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > ... > >>> This one doesn't really good to me. What I'd prefer would be to have a > >>> structure of "swap operations" pointers like ->start(), ->write_data(), > >>> ->read_data(), and ->finish() that will point to the functions in this file > >>> (if compression is to be used) or to the "old" swap_write_page()/swap_read_page() > >>> otherwise. That would reduce the number of the > >>> (flags& SF_NOCOMPRESS_MODE) checks quite substantially and will likely result > >>> in code that's easier to follow. > >> > >> Me too. I was heading in that direction, but not doing it in one step. > >> I'll happily change that. > > > > I'm still waiting for the reworked patch. If you can submit it in a few days > > and it looks good, I'll include it into the pull request for 2.6.37. > > Sorry for the delay. No biggie. > Would you be happy if, rather than reworking that patch and modifying > other patches that are affected, I added a new patch to the end of the > series? Not really. That would make it difficult for other people to follow the changes. Let's do things in the right order from the start. :-) Thanks, Rafael