Re: [RFD] Automatic suspend

Pavel Machek
2009-03-03T13:51:43Z

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 don't think I am the only one who want this code in the mainline
> >> kernel. Many people want to use the android platform, and support in
> >> the mainline kernel would be beneficial to some of them. I made many
> >> requested changes to my code that provides no benefit to us, but I
> >> have not made any changes that breaks our own use.
> >
> > OK, please resubmit the patches, then.
>
> 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.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html