Hi Jiri. On 22/06/10 01:21, Jiri Slaby wrote: > 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 Okay; thanks. Looking at Pavel's comment is confusing. The variable you were adding isn't "global static" (that's a contradiction in terms anyway). Its scope is the file level. Since the data is only used in this file, your change makes perfect sense to me. Rafael, Pavel: care to discuss this further? Nigel _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
