From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757502Ab0EZR4y (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 May 2010 13:56:54 -0400 Received: from www.tglx.de ([62.245.132.106]:42905 "EHLO www.tglx.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754950Ab0EZR4w (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 May 2010 13:56:52 -0400 Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 19:51:17 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner To: James Bottomley cc: Peter Zijlstra , Pavel Machek , Pekka Enberg , Arve Hj?nnev?g , Florian Mickler , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Alan Stern , Dmitry Torokhov , Linux-pm mailing list , Kernel development list , Len Brown , Randy Dunlap , Andrew Morton , Andi Kleen , Cornelia Huck , Tejun Heo , Jesse Barnes , Nigel Cunningham , Ming Lei , Wu Fengguang , Maxim Levitsky , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Matthew Garrett , Greg KH , tytso@mit.edu Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] PM: Opportunistic suspend support. In-Reply-To: <1274894685.4467.758.camel@mulgrave.site> Message-ID: References: <1274863342.5882.4850.camel@twins> <20100526112303.3fef15a4@schatten.dmk.lab> <1274866402.5882.5051.camel@twins> <1274868384.5882.5169.camel@twins> <1274869262.5882.5222.camel@twins> <1274890736.4467.574.camel@mulgrave.site> <1274891308.1674.1766.camel@laptop> <20100526165919.GB2089@elf.ucw.cz> <1274893309.1674.1773.camel@laptop> <1274894685.4467.758.camel@mulgrave.site> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 26 May 2010, James Bottomley wrote: > On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 19:01 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 18:59 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > On Wed 2010-05-26 18:28:28, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 11:18 -0500, James Bottomley wrote: > > > > > > Or make the suspend manager a C proglet and provide a JNI interface, > > > > > > or whatever. > > > > > > > > > > It's a fairly large piece of code to try to rewrite in C, so I don't > > > > > think that's feasible on a reasonable timescale. Android does have the > > > > > concept of special sockets that can be used to communicate from less to > > > > > more privileged processes (it has a very segmented runtime model), so > > > > > these might be usable ... they have a drawback that they're essentially > > > > > named pipes, so no multiplexing, but one per suspend influencing C > > > > > process shouldn't be a huge burden. > > > > > > > > It wouldn't need to convert the whole Frameworks layer into C, just > > > > enough to manage the suspend state. > > > > > > > > Anyway, I think there's been enough arguments against even the concept > > > > of opportunistic/auto-suspend, and I for one will object with a NAK if > > > > Rafael send this to Linus. > > > > > > It was submitted already. I tried to followup with NAK, but can't > > > currently see it in the archive. > > You mean this one: > > https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/linux-pm/2010-May/025689.html > > ? > > > It was apparently hidden on some funky list. > > Sending a PM pull request to the PM list doesn't really strike me as the > height of obfuscation. Plus almost everyone who objected was on the cc > list. > > > Hiding pull requests is bad enough, but hiding pull requests for > > contended features is just plain wrong. > > I don't think it's a conspiracy ... just standard operating procedure > for this subsystem. I do think cc'ing lkml is good practise (having > been yelled at for not doing that in the past) but it's certainly not > universal practise. At least it would be good style for a topic which is 1) contended like this one 2) pushing an intrusive feature last minute which has been merged into the pm tree barely two days ago. Darn, _we_ have to deal with that forever as it sets a crappy user space ABI in stone. Thanks, tglx