[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: suspend2 review [was Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)]
On Po 20-02-06 18:05:37, Olivier Galibert wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 01:49:37PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > > Yep, if you do it all in userspace, this vanishes. 340 lines down.
> > >
> > > And you gain? Let's try not to be too biased :).
> >
> > I gain 340 less lines to review. For me to review, for akpm to review,
> > and for Linus to review. That's important.
> 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).

At least it will be only me reviewing it, and not akpm and Linus.

suspend2 received no such review, and still people claim it is
reliable. "I wish they'd kill suspend2 project, it already did enough
damage." (Half joking here, but suspend2 split user/development
community, and that's not good).

Web maintainer for ( wanted...
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-02-20 18:12    [W:0.470 / U:4.960 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site