Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.

[Nigel Cunningham <nigel@suspend2.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1636 bytes --]

Hi.

On Saturday 04 February 2006 19:01, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On So 04-02-06 11:20:54, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > Hi Pavel.
> >
> > On Friday 03 February 2006 21:44, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > [Pavel is willing to take patches, as his cooperation with Rafael
> > > shows, but is scared by both big patches and series of 10 small
> > > patches he does not understand. He likes patches removing code.]
> >
> > Assuming you're refering to the patches that started this thread, what
> > don't you understand? I'm more than happy to explain.
>
> For "suspend2: modules support", it is pretty clear that I do not need
> or want that complexity. But for "refrigerator improvements", I did

... and yet you're perfectly happy to add the complexity of sticking half 
the code in userspace. I don't think I'll ever dare to try to understand 
you, Pavel :)

> not understand which parts are neccessary because of suspend2
> vs. swsusp differences, and if there is simpler way towards the same
> goal. (And thanks for a stress hint...)

I think virtually everything is relevant to you. A couple of possible 
exceptions might be (1) freezing bdevs, because you don't care so much 
about making xfs really sync and really stop it's activity and (2) the 
ability to thaw kernel space without thawing userspace. I want this for 
eating memory, to avoid deadlocking against kjournald etc. I haven't 
checked carefully as to why you don't need it in vanilla.

Regards,

Nigel

-- 
See our web page for Howtos, FAQs, the Wiki and mailing list info.
http://www.suspend2.net                IRC: #suspend2 on Freenode

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]