Hi again. On 25/03/10 16:42, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > On 25/03/10 16:30, Pavel Machek wrote: > [...] > >> I have some problems with sws_module_ops interface (handcoded locking >> is too ugly to live), but it is better than I expected. But there may >> be better solution available, one that does not need two interfaces to >> maintain (we can't really get rid of userland interface). What about >> this? > > Just picking up on that bracketed part: Can we flag the userland > interface (and uswsusp) as being planned for eventual removal now... or > at least agree to work toward that? > > I'm asking because if we're going to make a go of getting the in-kernel > code in much better shape, and we have Rafael, Jiri and I - and you? - > all pulling in the same direction to improve it, there's going to come a I realised after sending this that the " - and you? - " was ambiguous. I wasn't meaning to suggest that you might pull in a different direction, but rather uncertainty as to whether you might help with the effort - it's been a while (AFAIR) since you've done any hibernaton patches. Humble apologies for the ambiguity! Nigel _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
