Hi. On Tuesday 07 February 2006 13:13, Lee Revell wrote: > 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. Well, I will have to maintain it, and I'm perfectly willing to. I only started to work on it in the first place because I wanted to use it, so I have a vested interest in keeping it working. So... even if we end up pulling it out in place of a userspace solution, I really like the idea of putting it in at least until uswsusp is up to speed (provided it didn't given Andrew and/or Linus a hernia in the process). To avoid the backwards compatability issues, we can plan ahead now, defining something like I suggested in another email earlier in the day. Regards, Nigel -- See our web page for Howtos, FAQs, the Wiki and mailing list info. http://www.suspend2.net IRC: #suspend2 on Freenode
Attachment:
pgputbxaxNKGA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- References:
- [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.
- From: Nigel Cunningham <[email protected]>
- Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
- From: Jim Crilly <[email protected]>
- Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
- From: Lee Revell <[email protected]>
- [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.
- Prev by Date: Re: 8250 serial console fixes -- issue
- Next by Date: Re: 2.6.16-rc1-mm2 pata driver confusion + tsc sync issues
- 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):
 |