Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964874AbWBTKue (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Feb 2006 05:50:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964876AbWBTKud (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Feb 2006 05:50:33 -0500 Received: from canadatux.org ([81.169.162.242]:36765 "EHLO zoidberg.canadatux.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964874AbWBTKuc (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Feb 2006 05:50:32 -0500 Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 11:50:16 +0100 From: Matthias Hensler To: Pavel Machek Cc: Nigel Cunningham , Sebastian Kgler , kernel list , rjw@sisk.pl Subject: Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.) Message-ID: <20060220105016.GA22552@kobayashi-maru.wspse.de> Reply-To: Matthias Hensler References: <20060201113710.6320.68289.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <20060211104130.GA28282@kobayashi-maru.wspse.de> <20060218142610.GT3490@openzaurus.ucw.cz> <200602200709.17955.nigel@suspend2.net> <20060219212952.GI15311@elf.ucw.cz> <20060220094300.GC19293@kobayashi-maru.wspse.de> <20060220103616.GC16042@elf.ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060220103616.GC16042@elf.ucw.cz> Organization: WSPse (http://www.wspse.de/) X-Gummibears: Bouncing here and there and everywhere X-Face: &Tv]9SsNpb/$w8\G-O%>W02aApFW^P>[x+Upv9xQB!2;iD9Y1-Lz'qlc{+lL2Y>J(u76Jk,cJ@$tP2-M%y?^'jn2J]3C'ss_~"u?kA^X&{]h?O?@*VwgSGob73I9r}&S%ktup0k2!neScg3'HO}PU#Ac>jwNL|P@f|f*sz*cP'hi)/a=6.rc-P1vXarjVXlzClmNfcSy/$4tQz User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1199 Lines: 34 Hi. On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 11:36:16AM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Po 20-02-06 10:43:00, Matthias Hensler wrote: > > Linux has a whole crypto API in the kernel, so why is it a problem > > to have LZF there too? > > Because it is not needed there? Hmmm, I think it makes totally sense there. While it is useful in the suspend case, it would also be useful to the current implementation that use the crypto API. Think about creating a compressed volume with cryptoloop of dm-crypt. > > About the progress bar: this is already implemented in userspace, > > the kernel just forwards the progress via netlink to it. Not > > necessarily ugly I think. > > Look at the code. OK, could you point me to the ugly thinks. I see message passing between the userspace application and the kernel, for which I think that netlink is a good choice. What has to be done to make the code not ugly? Is there a way to fix it to become acceptable? Regards, Matthias - 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/