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    [W:0.039 / U:60.488 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site