lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
Quoting "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>:

> This point is valid, but I don't think the users will _have_ _to_
> switch to the
> userland suspend. AFAICT we are going to keep the kernel-based code
> as long as necessary.

Yep, that's what I thought too. Read on...

> We are just going to implement features in the user space that need not be
> implemented in the kernel. Of course they can be implemented in the
> kernel, and you have shown that clearly, but since they need not be there,
> we should at least try to implement them in the user space and see how this
> works.

Well, given that the kernel suspend is going to be kept for a while,
wouldn't it be better if it was feature full? How would the users be at
a disadvantage if they had better kernel based suspend for a while,
followed by u-beaut-cooks-cleans-and-washes uswsusp? That's the part I
don't get...

So, to be direct, let me ask:

Why is it so important to keep an inferior implementation of kernel
based suspend, when a better one and field tested, exists?

--
Bojan
-
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: 2006-02-07 01:34    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site