Re: [Swsusp-devel] Re: swsusp problems [was Re: Your opinion on the merge?]

[Michael Frank]

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 00:23:38 +0100, Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> wrote:

> On Ät 25-03-04 06:46:12, Michael Frank wrote:
> > May I request that you leave the authors headers intact when quoting. Thank
> > you.
>
> As you wish.
>
> > On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 11:17:04 +0100, Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > >>>>So why aren't you arguing against bootsplash too? That definitely
> > >>>>obscures such an error :> Of course we could argue that such an error
> > >>>>shouldn't happen and/or will be obvious via other means (assuming it
> > >>>>indicates hardware failure).
> > >>>
> > >>>Of course I *am* against bootsplash. Unfortunately I've probably lost
> > >>>that war already. But at least it is not in -linus tree (and that's
> > >>>what I use anyway) => I gave up with bootsplash-equivalents, as long
> > >>>as they don't come to linus.
> > >>>
> > >>>[And I believe Linus would shoot down bootsplash-like code, anyway.]
> >
> > Why? Joe consumer wants it.
> > As to the ever growing size of the kernel, there could be a official
> > addons/tools
> > tree with non-core functions maintained by a seperate maintainer. Things
> > like
> > debuggers, profiling or (swsusp) debug support could go there as
> > well...
>
> Yes, having -nice patch with bootsplashes, translated kernel messages,
> and swsusp eye-candy would work for me.

If a -nice _tree_ is useful, your guys just have to launch it. Gosh this could reduce
arguments about what goes into the kernel and save Linus and Andrew lots of work.

> Feel free to maintain it.

Busy enough with testing, actually far too busy for being on a volunteer basis ;)

I am sure that better qualified and properly supported/sponsored individuals
will queue up as long as it is an _official_ -nice tree with the good purpose
of centralizing useful non-core functions :)

> > >>Solution: Auto switch to non-swsusp VT on error showing the error message.
> > >
> > >Hmm, at that point you loose context, like now you know what error
> > >happened, but do not know at which phase of suspend. That's pretty bad
> > >too.
> >
> > Right, Good idea!  Just  print always "ugly" swsusp context on a text VT -
> > plus any
> > error messages  - and switch over to this VT in printk when not in interrupt
> > context. 10 lines of code or so in printk ;)
>
> You see, 10 lines in printk is probably good enough reason not to
> include that patch in kernel, because its "too ugly".

Pretty does not count above, Ugly does not count here, Functionality always does.
Besides that patch might be in the -nice tree.

> Plus it does not work if printk _was_ from interrupt context.

Kernel knows when in interrupt context and can defer switching.

> swsusp really should not have patch any code outside kernel/power.

Which is extremely ideal, but one thing at the time...

Michael
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/