From: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
To: Nigel Cunningham <ncunningham@cyclades.com>
Cc: Linux-pm mailing list <linux-pm@lists.osdl.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: swsusp3: push image reading/writing into userspace
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 13:16:01 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050915111601.GF2725@elf.ucw.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1126776726.4452.50.camel@localhost>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2071 bytes --]
Hi!
> > > You could reclaim it. There are 10 times as many hits (239,000) for
> > > suspend2, and I've never wanted it to be called swsusp2 anyway :). As
> > > for suspend4, at the moment, I'm not planning on ever progressing beyond
> > > 2.x.
> >
> > Sorry, have to ask...
> >
> > "not planning on progressing" == version number stays "2" no matter
> > what changes, or "not planning on progressing" == not plan to use
> > swsusp3/uswsusp infrastructure?
>
> I'm not planning on ever progressing beyond 2.x because I'm seeing the
> code I have now as pretty much feature complete. There are a few small
> areas that I'd like to improve (reinstating module support being one -
> it was a mistake to remove it), but I don't see the need for a complete
> redesign. That said, I was careful to say 'at the moment'. I'm not
> denying for a second that things might change.
Ok.
> Regarding the 'swsusp3/uswsusp infrastructure': as I see it at the
> moment (feel free to correct me), your new revision is only moving as
> much code as you can to userspace (plus changes that are made necessary
> by that). Beyond maybe reducing the kernel size a little, I don't see
> any advantage to that - it just makes things more complicated and
> requires the user to set up more in the way of an initrd or initramfs in
> order to suspend and resume. You end up with more code to maintain to
> get the same functionality (same amount of kernel code or slightly less
> plus extra userland code to do all the reading and writing). I'm
Agreed. OTOH interface code is quite small (~100 lines).
> If the main impetus is seeking to reduce kernel code size, why not just
> provide the option of building your code as a module for those who are
> concerned about that statistic?
It is source code size that I'm concerned about. And flexibility; with
writer in userspace, I (or anyone else :-) can do all kinds of
graphical progress bars, esc-to-cancel, ... that would be too ugly to
do in kernel.
Pavel
--
if you have sharp zaurus hardware you don't need... you know my address
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 0 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-09-15 11:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-09-14 22:32 swsusp3: push image reading/writing into userspace Pavel Machek
2005-09-15 1:59 ` Nigel Cunningham
2005-09-15 6:37 ` Pavel Machek
2005-09-15 7:16 ` Nigel Cunningham
2005-09-15 7:37 ` [linux-pm] " Pavel Machek
2005-09-15 9:32 ` Nigel Cunningham
2005-09-15 11:16 ` Pavel Machek [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20050915111601.GF2725@elf.ucw.cz \
--to=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@lists.osdl.org \
--cc=ncunningham@cyclades.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox