Hi Rafael. On 02/10/10 07:28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > 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. Sorry for the delay. Would you be happy if, rather than reworking that patch and modifying other patches that are affected, I added a new patch to the end of the series? Regards, Nigel _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
