Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S269040AbUJKO51 (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Oct 2004 10:57:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S269031AbUJKO4o (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Oct 2004 10:56:44 -0400 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2]:42668 "EHLO main.gmane.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S269014AbUJKOxX (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Oct 2004 10:53:23 -0400 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Jan Rychter Subject: Re: 2.6.9-rc2-mm1 swsusp bug report. Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 23:53:29 +0900 Message-ID: References: <2HO0C-4xh-29@gated-at.bofh.it> <2I5b2-88s-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <2I5E5-6h-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <2I7Zd-1TK-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <20040925101640.GB4039@elf.ucw.cz> <20041011133234.GA16217@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 66-27-68-14.san.rr.com X-Spammers-Please: blackholeme@rychter.com User-Agent: Gnus/5.110003 (No Gnus v0.3) XEmacs/21.4 (Security Through Obscurity, linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:VPR5EayQ8epi4ZzF9tkPzuB8NPE= Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2047 Lines: 38 >>>>> "Pavel" == Pavel Machek writes: Pavel> Hi! You do not know how much you should preallocate, because it Pavel> depends on ammount of memory used. You could preallocate maximum Pavel> possible ammount... >> Pavel> OTOH this is first report of this failure. If it fails once in a Pavel> blue moon, it is probably better to let it fail than waste Pavel> memory. >> >> This is *exactly* why I choose to use swsusp2. There is a marked >> difference in the maintainer's approach to these kinds of problems. Pavel> Okay, and do you have something to say or do you want to start Pavel> flamewar? That is also why swsusp2 is 10 times code size of Pavel> swsusp... Sure, flame me if you think this is the right thing to do. But I will continue to pitch in with a users' opinion sometimes, because I really believe it is important. It is easy to lose sight of the user perspective on these things if all you deal with is kernel development. You probably reboot your machine dozens of times a day anyway. However, for some users crashes and reboots are *very* expensive. These people (myself included) consider sprinkling the code with panics, crashing and failing an unacceptable thing to do. I also believe your reply shows how important it is for me to actually write things like these from time to time (even risking getting flamed). As a user I don't care whatsoever what the code size is. Actually, I don't care that much about its performance, either. What I do care about is that my operating system doesn't crash from under me, doesn't lose my data, and doesn't fail on me with suspending when I really need it to suspend now. Give me a userspace USB implementation that works 10x slower and is 10x larger but doesn't crash my machine and I'll take it any day. --J. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/