Hi. On Tuesday 07 February 2006 19:37, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Po 06-02-06 22:13:36, 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. > > It does just work in mainline now. If it does not please open bug > account at bugzilla.kernel.org. > > If mainline swsusp is too slow for you, install uswsusp. If it is > still too slow for you, mail me a patch adding LZW to userland code > (should be easy). <horrified rebuke> Pavel! Responses like this are precisely why you're not the most popular kernel maintainer. Telling people to use beta (alpha?) code or fix it themselves (and then have their patches rejected by you) is no way to maintain a part of the kernel. Stop being a liability instead of an asset! </horrified rebuke> Nigel -- See our web page for Howtos, FAQs, the Wiki and mailing list info. http://www.suspend2.net IRC: #suspend2 on Freenode
Attachment:
pgpRgkXNDL7mh.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Follow-Ups:
- 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: Lee Revell <[email protected]>
- Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
- From: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>
- [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.
- Prev by Date: Re: Two Oopses at boot with 2.6.16-rc2-git1 - Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address ...
- 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):