From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264260AbUG1VUs (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jul 2004 17:20:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264246AbUG1VUr (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jul 2004 17:20:47 -0400 Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.131]:16844 "EHLO e33.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264260AbUG1VUg (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jul 2004 17:20:36 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] reduce swsusp casting From: Dave Hansen To: Patrick Mochel Cc: Pavel Machek , Linux Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: References: <1091043436.2871.320.camel@nighthawk> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1091049624.2871.464.camel@nighthawk> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 14:20:24 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 14:07, Patrick Mochel wrote: > On Wed, 28 Jul 2004, Dave Hansen wrote: > > > I noticed that swsusp uses quite a few interesting casts for __pa() and > > cousins. This patch moves some types around to eliminate some of those > > casts in the normal code. The casts that it adds are around alloc's and > > frees, which is a much more usual place to see them. > > > > Pavel also noticed that there's a superfluous PAGE_ALIGN() right before > > a >>PAGE_SHIFT in pfn_is_nosave(), so that's been removed as well. > > What are these patches against? I released a bunch of patches to swsusp > and pmdisk two weeks ago. I'm not sure if Andrew has picked them up yet. > It would be nice if you would patch against those. It was against 2.6.8-rc1-mm1, but I can patch against whatever. Do you have those patches consolidated somewhere, or is it best that I look in the archives? > > I haven't had a chance to do anything but test it, because that would > > involve me setting up a swsusp rig, which I'm more prone to screw up > > than the patch itself :) I'd appreciate if anyone with a stable setup > > could make sure I didn't do anything too stupid. > > I don't understand - have you really tested it or just compile-tested it? > If not, please do try it out for real. There is no reason to be scared of > swsusp, and the more people that use it, the more stable it will get. I'm not scared, just lazy :) I'll give it a shot. -- Dave