Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.

[Nigel Cunningham]

Hi.

On Thursday 02 February 2006 21:44, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2/2/06, Nigel Cunningham <nigel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > It's not an option because I'm not trying not to step all over your
> > codebase, because I'm not moving suspend2 to userspace and because it
> > doesn't make sense to add another layer of abstraction by sticking
> > /dev/snapshot in the middle of kernel space code. There may be more
> > reasons, but I haven't looked at the /dev/snapshot code at all.
>
> Any technical reasons why suspend modules shouldn't be in userspace? I
> can understand that you're not keen on redoing them but that's not an
> argument for inclusion in the mainline.

They're using cryptoapi to do the compression and encryption, and bio to do 
the I/O. Moving this to userspace will add extra complexity and of course 
slow down the process. It will also mean that to suspend and resume, the user 
will be unconditionally required to have an initrd or initramfs. This is 
already the case for the more complicated configurations (LVM, encryption 
with keys that need to be entered at a prompt etc), but most people simply 
use an unencrypted, compressed image on a swap partition and in that case do 
not and should not need the added complication of configuring an initrd.

Shouldn't the question be "Why are we making this more complicated by moving 
it to userspace?"

Regards,

Nigel
-- 
See our web page for Howtos, FAQs, the Wiki and mailing list info.
http://www.suspend2.net                IRC: #suspend2 on Freenode

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature