On 06/11/2010 11:46 AM, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > On 02/06/10 18:52, Jiri Slaby wrote: >> 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... Hi, it I added that based on this: http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/3/24/458 -- js _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
