On 06/11/2010 11:46 AM, Nigel Cunningham wrote:On 02/06/10 18:52, Jiri Slaby wrote:I addressed the comments I got on the previous RFC. I left the handles
in place, the functions in hibernate_io_ops now works on them. Further
I got rid of the memory barriers and minimized global variables as much
as possible. Comments welcome.
I would like to hear the arguments for using these handles. I understand
there may have been some previous discussion, but am unable to find it.
It seems far more sensible to me to not pass around a handle that
virtually nothing actually uses, and instead store and utilise the state
in the place where it is actually useful. If we had more than one struct
hibernate_io_handle in use at a time, I could understand going this way.
As it stands, however...
Hi, it I added that based on this: http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/3/24/458