Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)

[Nigel Cunningham <nigel@suspend2.net>]

Hi Dimitry.

On Tuesday 21 February 2006 00:01, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On 2/20/06, Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 10:39 +0100, Matthias Hensler wrote:
> > > > It is slightly slower,
> > >
> > > Sorry, but that is just unacceptable.
> >
> > Um... suspend2 puts extra tests into really hot paths like fork(), which
> > is equally unacceptable to many people.
>
> How bad is it really? From what I saw marking that swsuspend2 branch
> with "unlikely" should help the hot path.
>
> > Why can't people understand that arguing "it works" without any
> > consideration of possible performance tradeoffs is not a good enough
> > argument for merging?
>
> Many of Pavel's arguments are not about performance tradeoffs but
> about perceived complexity of the code. I think if Nigel could run a
> clean up on his implementation and split it into couple of largish
> (not for inclusion but for general overview) pieces, like separate
> arch support, generally useful bits and the rest it would allow seeing
> more clearly how big and invasive swsuspend2 core is.

I'm working on doing that right now. I was starting on it with the plugins 
patches a few weeks ago, and intended to follow it up pretty quickly with the 
rest. Unfortunately I've gotten sidetracked and overwhelmed by email :) and a 
lot of other things, so it's taking a lot longer than I wanted. 
Never-the-less, I'm working towards precisely this.

Regards,

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

Attachment: pgpmyJFFY5Xbc.pgp
Description: PGP signature