From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750873AbWBCWwz (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Feb 2006 17:52:55 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751502AbWBCWwz (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Feb 2006 17:52:55 -0500 Received: from gprs189-60.eurotel.cz ([160.218.189.60]:30883 "EHLO amd.ucw.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750873AbWBCWwz (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Feb 2006 17:52:55 -0500 Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 23:52:37 +0100 From: Pavel Machek To: Nigel Cunningham Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Pekka Enberg , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [ 01/10] [Suspend2] kernel/power/modules.h Message-ID: <20060203225237.GB3251@elf.ucw.cz> References: <20060201113710.6320.68289.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <200602031020.46641.nigel@suspend2.net> <200602030957.48626.rjw@sisk.pl> <200602032147.23782.nigel@suspend2.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <200602032147.23782.nigel@suspend2.net> X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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!