On Friday, October 01, 2010, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > Hi Rafael. Hi, > 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. No biggie. > 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? Not really. That would make it difficult for other people to follow the changes. Let's do things in the right order from the start. :-) Thanks, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
