> On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 23:31 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > > This patch adds writing support for /dev/oldmem. This is used to > > > restore the memory contents of hibernated system. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Huang Ying <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > +ssize_t write_oldmem_page(unsigned long pfn, const char *buf, > > > + size_t csize, unsigned long offset, int userbuf) > > > > Hmm, int userbuf is only ever set to one... Does it make sense to have > > write_oldmem_page in the separate file? The onl user is mem.c, perhaps > > it should go there? > > > > write_oldmem_page is kept to be consistent with copy_oldmem_page as much > as possible. The userbuf is used by copy_oldmem_page too, and > write_oldmem_page is in the same file as copy_oldmem_page. I think the > consistence between them is reasonable. > > And the copy_oldmem_page/write_oldmem_page is considered to be > architecture dependent. Now, there are different implementations for > copy_oldmem_page on different architectures. So I think the > copy_oldmem_page/write_oldmem_page should be kept in separate file > instead of go mem.c. I thought it may have something to do with consistency. ACK on that one. Perhaps it should be pushed to akpm? Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
