Quoting "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[email protected]>:
This point is valid, but I don't think the users will _have_ _to_
switch to the
userland suspend. AFAICT we are going to keep the kernel-based code
as long as necessary.
Yep, that's what I thought too. Read on...
We are just going to implement features in the user space that need not be
implemented in the kernel. Of course they can be implemented in the
kernel, and you have shown that clearly, but since they need not be there,
we should at least try to implement them in the user space and see how this
works.
Well, given that the kernel suspend is going to be kept for a while,
wouldn't it be better if it was feature full? How would the users be at
a disadvantage if they had better kernel based suspend for a while,
followed by u-beaut-cooks-cleans-and-washes uswsusp? That's the part I
don't get...
So, to be direct, let me ask:
Why is it so important to keep an inferior implementation of kernel
based suspend, when a better one and field tested, exists?
--
Bojan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
