RE: [linux-pm] [RFC] userland swsusp

[Gross, Mark]

I worry that this is just adding more thrash to a historically unstable
implementation.  How long do we users have to wait for a swsusp
implementation where we don't have to worry about breaking from one
kernel release to the next?

I agree with this post http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/9/15/125 and note that
making too large of a change thrashes the users a lot and if it doesn't
solve a real problem or enable something critical, why make the changes?


--mgross

>-----Original Message-----
>From: linux-pm-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:linux-pm-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>On Behalf Of Pavel Machek
>Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 12:56 AM
>To: Dave Jones; kernel list; Rafael J. Wysocki; Linux-pm mailing list
>Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [RFC] userland swsusp
>
>Hi!
>
>>  > > Even it were not for this, the whole idea seems misconcieved to
me
>>  > > anyway.
>>  >
>>  > ...but how do you provide nice, graphical progress bar for swsusp
>>  > without this? People want that, and "esc to abort", compression,
>>  > encryption. Too much to be done in kernel space, IMNSHO.
>>
>> I'll take "rootkit doesnt work" over "bells and whistles".
>
>It moves bunch of code from kernelspace to userspace. You don't have
>to add bells and whistles at the same time. That's normally called
>good thing. If Fedora has special needs, fine.
>								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/