On Thursday 25 March 2010, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > Hi. > > On 26/03/10 07:14, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Thursday 25 March 2010, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > >> Hi. > >> > >> 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? > > > > No, we can't. > > > >> 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 > >> point (hopefully not too far away) where uswsusp is just making life too > >> difficult, and getting rid of it will be a big help. > > > > We're not dropping user space interfaces used by every distro I know of. > > So what's your long term plan then? First, improve the in-kernel thing, second, switch people to it, _then_ remove the s2disk interface (after we're reasonably sure it's not used by any major distro) and _finally_ simplify things after it's been removed. Does that sound reasonable? Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
