On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 22:01 -0500, Jim Crilly wrote: > On 02/06/06 08:19:02PM -0500, Lee Revell wrote: > > On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 19:59 -0500, Jim Crilly wrote: > > > I guess reasonable is a subjective term. For instance, I've seen quite > > > a few people vehemently against adding new ioctls to the kernel and > > > yet you'll be adding quite a few for /dev/snapshot. I'm just of the > > > same mind as Nigel in that it makes the most sense to me that the > > > majority of the suspend/hibernation process to be in the kernel. > > > > No one is saying that ANY new ioctls are bad, just that the KISS > > principle of engineering dictates that it's bad design to use ioctls > > where a simple read/write to a sysfs file will do. > > > > I understand that, but shouldn't the KISS principle also be applied to > the user interface of a feature? Personally I agree with you on suspend2, I think this is something that needed to Just Work yesterday, and every day it doesn't work we are losing users... but who am I to talk, I'm not the one who will have to maintain it. Lee - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
- From: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
- Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
- From: Nigel Cunningham <nigel@suspend2.net>
- Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
- References:
- [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.
- From: Nigel Cunningham <nigel@suspend2.net>
- Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
- From: Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com>
- Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
- From: Nigel Cunningham <nigel@suspend2.net>
- Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
- From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
- Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
- From: "Jim Crilly" <jim@why.dont.jablowme.net>
- Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
- From: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
- Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
- From: "Jim Crilly" <jim@why.dont.jablowme.net>
- Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
- From: Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com>
- Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
- From: Jim Crilly <jim@why.dont.jablowme.net>
- [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.
- Prev by Date: Re: Broken NFS (perhaps Cache invalidation bug ?)
- Next by Date: Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
- Previous by thread: Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
- Next by thread: Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
- Index(es):
![]() |