Hi again.

On 25/03/10 16:42, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
quoted text
> On 25/03/10 16:30, Pavel Machek wrote:
> [...]
>
>> I have some problems with sws_module_ops interface (handcoded locking
>> is too ugly to live), but it is better than I expected. But there may
>> be better solution available, one that does not need two interfaces to
>> maintain (we can't really get rid of userland interface). What about
>> this?
>
> Just picking up on that bracketed part: Can we flag the userland
> interface (and uswsusp) as being planned for eventual removal now... or
> at least agree to work toward that?
>
> I'm asking because if we're going to make a go of getting the in-kernel
> code in much better shape, and we have Rafael, Jiri and I - and you? -
> all pulling in the same direction to improve it, there's going to come a

I realised after sending this that the " - and you? - " was ambiguous. I 
wasn't meaning to suggest that you might pull in a different direction, 
but rather uncertainty as to whether you might help with the effort - 
it's been a while (AFAIR) since you've done any hibernaton patches.

Humble apologies for the ambiguity!

Nigel
--
unsubscribe notice
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/