Hi. (Sorry Jiri - unintentionally originally replied only to you). On 02/06/10 18:52, Jiri Slaby wrote: > Hi, > > I addressed the comments I got on the previous RFC. I left the handles > in place, the functions in hibernate_io_ops now works on them. Further > I got rid of the memory barriers and minimized global variables as much > as possible. Comments welcome. I would like to hear the arguments for using these handles. I understand there may have been some previous discussion, but am unable to find it. It seems far more sensible to me to not pass around a handle that virtually nothing actually uses, and instead store and utilise the state in the place where it is actually useful. If we had more than one struct hibernate_io_handle in use at a time, I could understand going this way. As it stands, however... Regards, Nigel _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
