On 2/21/06, Lee Revell <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 18:05 +0100, Olivier Galibert wrote: > > Pavel, if you mean that the userspace code will not be reviewed to > > standards the kernel code is, kill uswsusp _NOW_ before it does too > > much damage. Unreliable suspend eats filesystems for breakfast. The > > other userspace components of the kernels services are either optional > > (udev) or not that important (alsa). > > > > Why is sound less important than suspending, or networking, or any other > subsystem? This is an insult to everyone who worked long and hard to > get decent sound support on Linux. > I bet this was not meant as an insult. Quote: "Unreliable suspend eats filesystems for breakfast". The worst thing mismatched ALSA library could cause is noice in my speakers. -- Dmitry - 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/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: suspend2 review [was Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)]
- From: Tristan Wibberley <[email protected]>
- Re: suspend2 review [was Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)]
- From: Lee Revell <[email protected]>
- Re: suspend2 review [was Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)]
- 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: Nigel Cunningham <[email protected]>
- suspend2 review [was Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)]
- From: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>
- Re: suspend2 review [was Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)]
- From: Nigel Cunningham <[email protected]>
- Re: suspend2 review [was Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)]
- From: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>
- Re: suspend2 review [was Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)]
- From: Olivier Galibert <[email protected]>
- Re: suspend2 review [was 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: 2.6.16-rc4-mm1
- Next by Date: Re: make -j with j <= 4 seems to only load a single CPU core
- Previous by thread: Re: suspend2 review [was Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)]
- Next by thread: Re: suspend2 review [was Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)]
- Index(es):
 |