public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
	kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [swsusp] separate snapshot functionality to separate file
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 02:06:58 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20051005000658.GJ18481@elf.ucw.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200510050047.45697.rjw@sisk.pl>

Hi!

> > Well, same cleanup can be done after the split, just as easily.
> > 
> > > 3) some cleanups are due before the splitting (eg. function names, the removal
> > > of prepare_suspend_image() etc.),
> > 
> > Split does not prevent you from doing the cleanups.
> 
> No, it doesn't, but the flow of changes would be easier to follow if the
> cleanups were made first (ie. cleanup -> smaller and simpler code ->
> split).

I wanted to have a "this changes nothing" patch first. Cleanups in
front would be trickier to do because period of "settle down" is
needed before split. We now had quite a long "settle down" period, so
I've seen opportunity to do the split now.

> > No. It needs to be controlled by storage-handling parts, so that
> > snapshot-handling parts become nice library.
> 
> You are right, I have confused the sides.  I should have said like that:
> The snapshot-handling part makes some functions available to the
...
> part need not care for what happens to the pages of data send to the
> storage-handling parts as long as it can receive them back in the same
> order in which they have been sent.

Nicely said.

> > That is ugly. snapshot needs to be called from storage handling parts,
> > and then interface can become much simpler:
> > 
> > struct pbe *sys_snapshot();
> > 
> > snapshots a system, then you can save it in any way you want. And
> > 
> > void sys_restore(struct pbe *);
> > 
> > . Simple, eh?
> 
> Well, aren't there any problems with handling kernel addresses from the user
> space and vice versa?

Nothing we could not handle. Kernel needs to use get_user, while
userspace needs to seek/read/write on /dev/kmem (when accessing "the
other" addresses).

> Anyway, I think on resume we should send data from the user space to the
> kernel and let the kernel arrange them in memory instead of placing them in
> memory directly from the used space.  By symmetry, on suspend we should send
> data from the kernel to the user space instead of allowing the users space
> to read memory at will.  IMO the arrangement of the data in memory should
> not be visible to the user space at all.

I thought about that -- user/kernel interface would certainly be nicer
-- but I do not think it is feasible without writing a lot of code. 

[I agree that assymetry I have in there is ugly, but I don't see a way
to do alloc_pagedir() in userspace, and I'd like to keep page
relocation in userspace.]

> Still I'm afraid in the future we'll be moving some functions between
> snapshot.c and swsusp.c back and forth ...

We may have to move function or two, but I think nothing too dramatic
will happen.
								Pavel
-- 
if you have sharp zaurus hardware you don't need... you know my address

  reply	other threads:[~2005-10-05  0:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-10-02 23:13 [swsusp] separate snapshot functionality to separate file Pavel Machek
2005-10-03 21:39 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2005-10-03 23:17   ` Pavel Machek
2005-10-04 15:11     ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2005-10-04 20:53       ` Pavel Machek
2005-10-04 22:34         ` Nigel Cunningham
2005-10-05  8:41           ` Pavel Machek
2005-10-05 21:21             ` Lorenzo Colitti
2005-10-05 22:21               ` Nigel Cunningham
2005-10-05 22:44               ` Pavel Machek
2005-10-05 22:54                 ` Lorenzo Colitti
2005-10-05 22:57                   ` Pavel Machek
2005-10-05 23:00                     ` Pavel Machek
2005-10-05 23:18                       ` Lorenzo Colitti
2005-10-06 10:10                         ` Alon Bar-Lev
2005-10-06  8:20                           ` Pavel Machek
2005-10-09 23:41                             ` Nigel Cunningham
2005-10-04 22:47         ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2005-10-05  0:06           ` Pavel Machek [this message]
2005-10-05  8:20             ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2005-10-05  8:33               ` Pavel Machek
2005-10-06  8:23                 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2005-10-06 10:42                   ` Pavel Machek
2005-10-06 13:29                     ` Rafael J. Wysocki

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=20051005000658.GJ18481@elf.ucw.cz \
    --to=pavel@ucw.cz \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
    /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