Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10][Suspend2] Modules support.)

[Bojan Smojver]

Quoting "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx>:

> This point is valid, but I don't think the users will _have_ _to_ 
> switch to the
> userland suspend.  AFAICT we are going to keep the kernel-based code
> as long as necessary.

Yep, that's what I thought too. Read on...

> We are just going to implement features in the user space that need not be
> implemented in the kernel.  Of course they can be implemented in the
> kernel, and you have shown that clearly, but since they need not be there,
> we should at least try to implement them in the user space and see how this
> works.

Well, given that the kernel suspend is going to be kept for a while, 
wouldn't it be better if it was feature full? How would the users be at 
a disadvantage if they had better kernel based suspend for a while, 
followed by u-beaut-cooks-cleans-and-washes uswsusp? That's the part I 
don't get...

So, to be direct, let me ask:

Why is it so important to keep an inferior implementation of kernel 
based suspend, when a better one and field tested, exists?

--
Bojan
-
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/