[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C1205DC.1080200@crca.org.au>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 19:46:04 +1000
From: Nigel Cunningham <ncunningham@...a.org.au>
To: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
CC: rjw@...k.pl, linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jirislaby@...il.com
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 1/9] PM / Hibernate: swap, switch to hibernate_io_handle
Hi.
(Sorry Jiri - unintentionally originally replied only to you).
On 02/06/10 18:52, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I addressed the comments I got on the previous RFC. I left the handles
> in place, the functions in hibernate_io_ops now works on them. Further
> I got rid of the memory barriers and minimized global variables as much
> as possible. Comments welcome.
I would like to hear the arguments for using these handles. I understand
there may have been some previous discussion, but am unable to find it.
It seems far more sensible to me to not pass around a handle that
virtually nothing actually uses, and instead store and utilise the state
in the place where it is actually useful. If we had more than one struct
hibernate_io_handle in use at a time, I could understand going this way.
As it stands, however...
Regards,
Nigel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists