[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
    On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 22:01 -0500, Jim Crilly wrote:
    > On 02/06/06 08:19:02PM -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
    > > On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 19:59 -0500, Jim Crilly wrote:
    > > > I guess reasonable is a subjective term. For instance, I've seen quite
    > > > a few people vehemently against adding new ioctls to the kernel and
    > > > yet you'll be adding quite a few for /dev/snapshot. I'm just of the
    > > > same mind as Nigel in that it makes the most sense to me that the
    > > > majority of the suspend/hibernation process to be in the kernel.
    > >
    > > No one is saying that ANY new ioctls are bad, just that the KISS
    > > principle of engineering dictates that it's bad design to use ioctls
    > > where a simple read/write to a sysfs file will do.
    > >
    > I understand that, but shouldn't the KISS principle also be applied to
    > the user interface of a feature?

    Personally I agree with you on suspend2, I think this is something that
    needed to Just Work yesterday, and every day it doesn't work we are
    losing users... but who am I to talk, I'm not the one who will have to
    maintain it.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-02-07 04:16    [W:0.020 / U:15.580 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site