Re: [ 01/10] [Suspend2] kernel/power/modules.h

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

On Pá 03-02-06 21:47:18, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> On Friday 03 February 2006 18:57, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday 03 February 2006 01:20, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > > On Friday 03 February 2006 08:10, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

> > The biggest advantage of the userland-based approach I see is that there
> > may be _many_ implementations of the suspending and resuming tools
> > and they will not conflict.  For example, if Distributor X needs an exotic
> > feature Y wrt suspend (various vendor-specific eye-candies come to mind or
> > transferring the image over a network), he can implement it in his userland
> > tools without modifying the kernel.  Similarly, if Vendor V wants to use
> > paranoid encryption algorithm Z to encrypt the image, she can do that
> > _herself_ in the user space.
> 
> True, but can you really imagine people doing that? The one instance I can 
> think of was the donation of LZF support to Suspend2 a couple of
> years back.

Yes, I expect them to do so. Desktop distros have different needs than
for example embedded vendors, wanting to use swsusp for fast boot.

> > We only need to provide reference tools and we won't be asked to implement
> > every feature that people may want in the kernel.
> 
> I don't want it to be true, but I think you're being naive in saying that :) 
> We'll see, won't we?

I think I have a volunteer inside suse doing at least some of userland
swsusp work.
								Pavel
-- 
Thanks, Sharp!
-
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/