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:0.374 / U:0.480 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site