From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754870Ab0CYVK5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Mar 2010 17:10:57 -0400 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:51475 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752053Ab0CYVK4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Mar 2010 17:10:56 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Nigel Cunningham Subject: Re: what the patches do Re: [RFC 10/15] PM / Hibernate: user, implement user_ops reader Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 22:13:44 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.4 (Linux/2.6.34-rc2-rjw; KDE/4.3.5; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Pavel Machek , Jiri Slaby , jirislaby@gmail.com, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1269361063-3341-1-git-send-email-jslaby@suse.cz> <201003252129.10224.rjw@sisk.pl> <4BABC926.8060203@crca.org.au> In-Reply-To: <4BABC926.8060203@crca.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201003252213.44763.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 25 March 2010, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > Hi. > > On 26/03/10 07:29, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Thursday 25 March 2010, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > >> Hi. > >> > >> On 26/03/10 07:14, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >>> 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. > >> > >> So what's your long term plan then? > > > > First, improve the in-kernel thing, second, switch people to it, _then_ remove > > the s2disk interface (after we're reasonably sure it's not used by any major > > distro) and _finally_ simplify things after it's been removed. > > > > Does that sound reasonable? > > Well, that's pretty much what I was thinking too - improve then remove. > I was just suggesting that we flag now that this is our plan, so it > doesn't come as a surprise to anyone later and we can proceed more > quickly than might otherwise be the case. I think it's too early for that at this point. Rafael