Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161126AbWBTUaU (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Feb 2006 15:30:20 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161166AbWBTUaU (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Feb 2006 15:30:20 -0500 Received: from cust8446.nsw01.dataco.com.au ([203.171.93.254]:52195 "EHLO cust8446.nsw01.dataco.com.au") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161126AbWBTUaT (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Feb 2006 15:30:19 -0500 From: Nigel Cunningham Organization: Suspend2.net To: dtor_core@ameritech.net Subject: Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 06:27:06 +1000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 Cc: "Lee Revell" , "Matthias Hensler" , "Pavel Machek" , "Sebastian Kgler" , "kernel list" , rjw@sisk.pl References: <20060201113710.6320.68289.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <1140429758.3429.1.camel@mindpipe> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2083947.KDYajHR66p"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200602210627.12183.nigel@suspend2.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2300 Lines: 65 --nextPart2083947.KDYajHR66p Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Hi Dimitry. On Tuesday 21 February 2006 00:01, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On 2/20/06, Lee Revell wrote: > > On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 10:39 +0100, Matthias Hensler wrote: > > > > It is slightly slower, > > > > > > Sorry, but that is just unacceptable. > > > > Um... suspend2 puts extra tests into really hot paths like fork(), which > > is equally unacceptable to many people. > > How bad is it really? From what I saw marking that swsuspend2 branch > with "unlikely" should help the hot path. > > > Why can't people understand that arguing "it works" without any > > consideration of possible performance tradeoffs is not a good enough > > argument for merging? > > Many of Pavel's arguments are not about performance tradeoffs but > about perceived complexity of the code. I think if Nigel could run a > clean up on his implementation and split it into couple of largish > (not for inclusion but for general overview) pieces, like separate > arch support, generally useful bits and the rest it would allow seeing > more clearly how big and invasive swsuspend2 core is. I'm working on doing that right now. I was starting on it with the plugins= =20 patches a few weeks ago, and intended to follow it up pretty quickly with t= he=20 rest. Unfortunately I've gotten sidetracked and overwhelmed by email :) and= a=20 lot of other things, so it's taking a lot longer than I wanted.=20 Never-the-less, I'm working towards precisely this. Regards, Nigel =2D-=20 See our web page for Howtos, FAQs, the Wiki and mailing list info. http://www.suspend2.net IRC: #suspend2 on Freenode --nextPart2083947.KDYajHR66p Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBD+iYgN0y+n1M3mo0RAg5dAJ0bgBcD9SbEq7OPgN/vbl7Jy7SkRwCgqdLA ImpBYb8awevljogYe4/ccU8= =0xdV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2083947.KDYajHR66p-- - 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/