Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964919AbWBGDCN (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2006 22:02:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964940AbWBGDCN (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2006 22:02:13 -0500 Received: from hummeroutlaws.com ([12.161.0.3]:1804 "EHLO atpro.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964919AbWBGDCN (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2006 22:02:13 -0500 Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 22:01:29 -0500 From: Jim Crilly To: Lee Revell Cc: Pavel Machek , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Nigel Cunningham , suspend2-devel@lists.suspend2.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.) Message-ID: <20060207030129.GA23860@mail> Mail-Followup-To: Lee Revell , Pavel Machek , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Nigel Cunningham , suspend2-devel@lists.suspend2.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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> <1139275143.2041.24.camel@mindpipe> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1139275143.2041.24.camel@mindpipe> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060126 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1964 Lines: 37 On 02/06/06 08:19:02PM -0500, Lee Revell wrote: > 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. > I understand that, but shouldn't the KISS principle also be applied to the user interface of a feature? As it stands it looks like Suspend2 is going to be a lot simpler for users to configure and get right than uswsusp. As long as you have Suspend2 enabled in the kernel it 'just works', even if you don't have the userland UI it'll still suspend and resume just without the progress bars. There is still some room for error with things like forgetting to enable the swap writer and then attempting to suspend to a swap device or making lzf a module and forgetting to load it before resuming from a compressed image, but those are no worse than any other kernel option. With uswsusp it'll be more flexible in that you'll be able to use any userland process or library to transform the image before storing it, but the suspend and resume processes are going to be a lot more complicated. For instance, how are you going to tell the kernel that you need the uswsusp UI binary, /bin/gzip and /usr/bin/gpg to run after the rest of userland has been frozen? Jim. - 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/