Re: [RFD] Automatic suspend

Pavel Machek
2009-03-04T00:47:01Z

On Tue 2009-03-03 16:06:02, Arve Hj?nnev?g wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 5:51 AM, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> >> >> > Not ignoring, but considering them as insufficient.  And since they've already
> >> >> > been considered as insufficient, there's no point repeating them over and over
> >> >> > again.  That doesn't make them any better.
> >> >>
> >> >> The problem is that what you consider insufficient is what allows us
> >> >> to ship a product.
> >> >
> >> > This doesn't matter a whit, because the mainline kernel is not just your
> >> > product.
> >>
> >> Unless you are saying that changes in the mainline kernel does not
> >> need be usable in practice, then it does matter. If we remove the
> >> feature that allows us to interact with existing code, it will take
> >> much longer before it is usable by anyone.
> >
> > Well, taking longer before "being usable" is good tradeoff if it means
> > "we get cleaner/actually correct system in mainline sooner".
>
> I think this could go either way. If the system is usable, it may get
> more use from developers that know how to improve a specific subsystem
> to not use timeouts. Or, it may be considered good enough, and nobody
> bothers coming up with a correct solution. I think the latter is what
> you are worried will happen.

Yep.

> >> I submitted them three weeks ago. I'll submit a new set after I rename
> >> the api (presumably to suspend_block(er)) but I would like more
> >> agreement on the timeout issue first.
> >
> > I do believe that everyone (including you :-) agrees that timeouts are
> > ugly hack. So just reorder the series so they come at the end.
>
> No, I think many uses of timeouts are a ugly hack, not all, but OK I
> will try to move timeout support to a separate patch.

Thanks.

--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html