![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Hi, On Saturday 04 February 2006 10:54, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > On Saturday 04 February 2006 19:01, Pavel Machek wrote: > > On So 04-02-06 11:20:54, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > > Hi Pavel. > > > > > > On Friday 03 February 2006 21:44, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > [Pavel is willing to take patches, as his cooperation with Rafael > > > > shows, but is scared by both big patches and series of 10 small > > > > patches he does not understand. He likes patches removing code.] > > > > > > Assuming you're refering to the patches that started this thread, what > > > don't you understand? I'm more than happy to explain. > > > > For "suspend2: modules support", it is pretty clear that I do not need > > or want that complexity. But for "refrigerator improvements", I did > > ... and yet you're perfectly happy to add the complexity of sticking half > the code in userspace. I don't think I'll ever dare to try to understand > you, Pavel :) > > > not understand which parts are neccessary because of suspend2 > > vs. swsusp differences, and if there is simpler way towards the same > > goal. (And thanks for a stress hint...) > > I think virtually everything is relevant to you. My personal view is that: 1) turning the freezing of kernel threads upside-down is not necessary and would cause problems in the long run, 2) the todo lists are not necessary and add a lot of complexity, 3) trying to treat uninterruptible tasks as non-freezeable should better be avoided (I tried to implement this in swsusp last year but it caused vigorous opposition to appear, and it was not Pavel ;-)) > A couple of possible exceptions might be (1) freezing bdevs, > because you don't care so much about making xfs really sync and really > stop it's activity As I have already stated, in my view this one is at least worth considering in the long run. > and (2) the ability to thaw kernel space without thawing userspace. I want > this for eating memory, to avoid deadlocking against kjournald etc. I haven't > checked carefully as to why you don't need it in vanilla. Because it does not deadlock? I will say we need this if I see a testcase showing such a deadlock clearly. Greetings, Rafael - 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: 2006-02-04 11:06 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||