lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [21]   [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.)]
    From
    Date
    On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 17:17 -0500, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
    > On 2/21/06, Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com> 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.

    OK fair enough, I took that out of context.

    Lee

    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2006-02-21 23:23    [W:0.019 / U:27.084 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site