Subject: Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10]
	[Suspend2] Modules support.)
From: Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com>
To: Jim Crilly <jim@why.dont.jablowme.net>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>,
       Nigel Cunningham <nigel@suspend2.net>,
       suspend2-devel@lists.suspend2.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <20060207005930.GD31153@voodoo>
References: <20060201113710.6320.68289.stgit@localhost.localdomain>
	 <1139251682.2791.290.camel@mindpipe>
	 <200602070625.49479.nigel@suspend2.net> <200602070051.41448.rjw@sisk.pl>
	 <20060207003713.GB31153@voodoo> <20060207004611.GD1575@elf.ucw.cz>
	 <20060207005930.GD31153@voodoo>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 20:19:02 -0500
Message-Id: <1139275143.2041.24.camel@mindpipe>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 838
Lines: 18

On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 19:59 -0500, Jim Crilly wrote:
> I guess reasonable is a subjective term. For instance, I've seen quite
> a few people vehemently against adding new ioctls to the kernel and
> yet you'll be adding quite a few for /dev/snapshot. I'm just of the
> same mind as Nigel in that it makes the most sense to me that the
> majority of the suspend/hibernation process to be in the kernel. 

No one is saying that ANY new ioctls are bad, just that the KISS
principle of engineering dictates that it's bad design to use ioctls
where a simple read/write to a sysfs file will do.

Lee

-
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/