Messages in this thread | | | From | Nigel Cunningham <> | Subject | Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.) | Date | Tue, 21 Feb 2006 06:27:06 +1000 |
| |
Hi Dimitry.
On Tuesday 21 February 2006 00:01, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On 2/20/06, Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com> 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 patches a few weeks ago, and intended to follow it up pretty quickly with the rest. Unfortunately I've gotten sidetracked and overwhelmed by email :) and a lot of other things, so it's taking a lot longer than I wanted. Never-the-less, I'm working towards precisely this.
Regards,
Nigel -- See our web page for Howtos, FAQs, the Wiki and mailing list info. http://www.suspend2.net IRC: #suspend2 on Freenode [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |