On Monday, September 27, 2010, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > Hi. > > On 28/09/10 06:27, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Monday, September 27, 2010, Nigel Cunningham wrote: ... > > This one doesn't really good to me. What I'd prefer would be to have a > > structure of "swap operations" pointers like ->start(), ->write_data(), > > ->read_data(), and ->finish() that will point to the functions in this file > > (if compression is to be used) or to the "old" swap_write_page()/swap_read_page() > > otherwise. That would reduce the number of the > > (flags& SF_NOCOMPRESS_MODE) checks quite substantially and will likely result > > in code that's easier to follow. > > Me too. I was heading in that direction, but not doing it in one step. > I'll happily change that. I'm still waiting for the reworked patch. If you can submit it in a few days and it looks good, I'll include it into the pull request for 2.6.37. Thanks, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
