On Monday, June 21, 2010, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > 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? Well. Generally speaking, I like things as they are, except for patches [3/9] and [4/9]. So, I'd like to take [1-2/9] and [5-9/9]. Jiri, do [6-7/9] need to be changed substantially in case [3-4/9] are dropped? Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
