Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, 13 March 2007 10:23, Nick Piggin wrote: > >>I wouldn't say that. You're creating an interface here that is going to be >>used outside swsusp. Users of that interface may not need locking now, but >>that could cause problems down the line. > > > I think we can add the locking when it's necessary. For now, IMHO, it could be > confusing to someone who doesn't know the locking is not needed. I don't know why it would confuse them. We just define the API to guarantee the correct locking, and that means the locking _is_ needed. You don't have to care what the callers are doing. That's the beauty of a sane API. >>Sure you don't _need_ an rbtree, but our implementation makes it so simple >>that there isn't much downside. > > > Not much, but the code is more complicated. But it's in its own file and has a contained API, so it is very easy to review, test and verify. >>>mark_nosave_pages() refers to a function that's invisible outside snapshot.c >>>and I didn't think it was a good idea to separate mark_nosave_pages() >>>from register_nosave_region(). >> >>But that's because you even use mark_nosave_pages in your implementation. >>Mine uses the nosave regions directly. > > > Well, I think we need two bits per page anyway, to mark free pages and > pages allocated by swsusp, so using the nosave regions directly won't save us > much. Well I think it is a cleaner though. -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
