Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 07 Feb 2006 11:31:59 +1100 | From | Bojan Smojver <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |