From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: what the patches do Re: [RFC 10/15] PM / Hibernate: user, implement user_ops reader Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 21:14:36 +0100 Message-ID: <201003252114.36605.rjw__32998.4529329979$1269547970$gmane$org@sisk.pl> References: <1269361063-3341-1-git-send-email-jslaby@suse.cz> <20100325053003.GB12935@elf.ucw.cz> <4BAAF7DA.30506@crca.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4BAAF7DA.30506@crca.org.au> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Nigel Cunningham Cc: linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, Jiri Slaby , jirislaby@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 25 March 2010, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > Hi. > > On 25/03/10 16:30, Pavel Machek wrote: > [...] > > > I have some problems with sws_module_ops interface (handcoded locking > > is too ugly to live), but it is better than I expected. But there may > > be better solution available, one that does not need two interfaces to > > maintain (we can't really get rid of userland interface). What about > > this? > > Just picking up on that bracketed part: Can we flag the userland > interface (and uswsusp) as being planned for eventual removal now... or > at least agree to work toward that? No, we can't. > I'm asking because if we're going to make a go of getting the in-kernel > code in much better shape, and we have Rafael, Jiri and I - and you? - > all pulling in the same direction to improve it, there's going to come a > point (hopefully not too far away) where uswsusp is just making life too > difficult, and getting rid of it will be a big help. We're not dropping user space interfaces used by every distro I know of. Rafael