Re: [RFD] Automatic suspend

Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-03-01T09:11:18Z

On Sunday 01 March 2009, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-02-28 at 16:06 -0800, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>
> I'm not taking a position on the merit of the wakelocks per se nor
> whether Rafael is right or wrong here, I haven't looked at the problem
> closely enough. I just want to react to this:
>
> > The basic concept was developed long before android was a public
> > project.
>
> This isn't going to bring you any good will. We don't care what was done
> before it was a public project. That has strictly no relevance to how it
> should be submitted upstream.
>
> How long the code has been simmering internally to company X or Y or
> even in a public tree doesn't matter. Some times, yes, we do take
> something as a whole, when it makes no sense to do otherwise (a driver,
> a filesystem, ...).
>
> But something like what you propose, it seems, could easily be broken
> down into a basic concept, on which features are added one after the
> other, and in this case, it's the right way to go, simply because it's
> easier to argue for the basic concept alone if you don't have to handle
> comments froms people who don't agree with aspect A B or C of the other
> features involved.
>
> And if the basic concept doesn't get accepted in the first place, then
> the whole point is moot...

Exactly. This is what I've been trying to say for some time now.

Thanks Ben!

Rafael
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org