Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 25 Mar 2004 07:56:14 +0800 | From | "Michael Frank" <> | Subject | Re: [Swsusp-devel] Re: swsusp problems [was Re: Your opinion on the merge?] |
| |
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 00:23:38 +0100, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote:
> On Čt 25-03-04 06:46:12, Michael Frank wrote: >> May I request that you leave the authors headers intact when quoting. Thank >> you. > > As you wish. > >> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 11:17:04 +0100, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote: >> >> >>>>So why aren't you arguing against bootsplash too? That definitely >> >>>>obscures such an error :> Of course we could argue that such an error >> >>>>shouldn't happen and/or will be obvious via other means (assuming it >> >>>>indicates hardware failure). >> >>> >> >>>Of course I *am* against bootsplash. Unfortunately I've probably lost >> >>>that war already. But at least it is not in -linus tree (and that's >> >>>what I use anyway) => I gave up with bootsplash-equivalents, as long >> >>>as they don't come to linus. >> >>> >> >>>[And I believe Linus would shoot down bootsplash-like code, anyway.] >> >> Why? Joe consumer wants it. >> As to the ever growing size of the kernel, there could be a official >> addons/tools >> tree with non-core functions maintained by a seperate maintainer. Things >> like >> debuggers, profiling or (swsusp) debug support could go there as >> well... > > Yes, having -nice patch with bootsplashes, translated kernel messages, > and swsusp eye-candy would work for me.
If a -nice _tree_ is useful, your guys just have to launch it. Gosh this could reduce arguments about what goes into the kernel and save Linus and Andrew lots of work.
> Feel free to maintain it.
Busy enough with testing, actually far too busy for being on a volunteer basis ;)
I am sure that better qualified and properly supported/sponsored individuals will queue up as long as it is an _official_ -nice tree with the good purpose of centralizing useful non-core functions :)
> >> >>Solution: Auto switch to non-swsusp VT on error showing the error message. >> > >> >Hmm, at that point you loose context, like now you know what error >> >happened, but do not know at which phase of suspend. That's pretty bad >> >too. >> >> Right, Good idea! Just print always "ugly" swsusp context on a text VT - >> plus any >> error messages - and switch over to this VT in printk when not in interrupt >> context. 10 lines of code or so in printk ;) > > You see, 10 lines in printk is probably good enough reason not to > include that patch in kernel, because its "too ugly".
Pretty does not count above, Ugly does not count here, Functionality always does. Besides that patch might be in the -nice tree.
> Plus it does not work if printk _was_ from interrupt context.
Kernel knows when in interrupt context and can defer switching.
> > swsusp really should not have patch any code outside kernel/power.
Which is extremely ideal, but one thing at the time...
Michael - 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/
| |