From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 6)
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 23:11:26 +0200
Message-ID: <201005132311.26293.rjw@sisk.pl>
References: <1272667021-21312-1-git-send-email-arve@android.com> <1273779394.19100.47.camel@c-dwalke-linux.qualcomm.com> <20100513194820.GA19722@srcf.ucam.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20100513194820.GA19722@srcf.ucam.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg@redhat.com>
Cc: Daniel Walker <dwalker@fifo99.com>, Brian Swetland <swetland@google.com>, Paul Walmsley <paul@pwsan.com>, Arve =?iso-8859-1?q?Hj=F8nnev=E5g?= <arve@android.com>, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>, Kevin Hilman <khilman@deeprootsystems.com>, Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>, magnus.damm@gmail.com, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>, mark gross <mgross@linux.intel.com>, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>, Geoff Smith <geoffx.smith@intel.com>, =?iso-8859-1?q?Beno=EEt_Cousson?= <b-cousson@ti.com>, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@gmail.com>, Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>, Liam Girdwood <lrg@slimlogic.co.uk>
List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org

On Thursday 13 May 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 12:36:34PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 20:11 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > See feature-removal-schedule.txt. So far we have no indication that it's 
> > > going to be replaced, because nobody has actually suggested a working 
> > > way to do this better. If we had a concrete implementation proposal for 
> > > that then we'd be in a pretty different position right now.
> > 
> > Ok, feature-removal-schedule.txt applies to everything tho. What your
> > saying is that if this interface only last a short time it might take 6
> > months, if it last for a long time it would take longer. There's no easy
> > way to know that Google is the only user after some amount of time
> > passes.
> 
> If the interface is there for a long time, it's because we haven't come 
> up with anything better. And if we haven't come up with anything better, 
> the interface deserves to be there.

Moreover, the interface is already in use out-of-tree and that usage is
actually _growing_, so we have a growing number of out-of-tree drivers that
aren't megrgeable for this very reason.

I don't see any _realistic_ way of solving this problem other than merging
the opportunistic suspend.  If anyone sees one, and I mean _realistic_ and
_practically_ _feasible_, please tell me.

Rafael