Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, take three

Pavel Machek
2010-08-14T07:50:00Z

On Thu 2010-08-12 08:52:49, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 03:28:01PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >
> > The question is why are we adding a user-space API that:
> > 1) no user-space beside Android has expresses interest in implementing
> > 2) is dubious whether the benefits are worth the pain for non-Android
> > user-space
> > 3) will become less and less attractive as dynamic PM gets closer to
> > the sweet-spot, and then surpass it
> > 4) Android can keep in a separate tree until it's clear in the linux
> > community that it's useful (if it ever happens)
>
> So, Felipe,
>
> Do you believe you speak for all of LKML?
>
> Are you willing to tell ZDNet and the Slashdot fanboys that it's OK
> for Suspend blockers to live in a separate tree, and it's not a case
> of OMG! Google is forking the kernel?
>
> If you could speak out a passionately on those forums as you have
> here, that would be great.

Ted, what is going on here? Are you suggesting people disagreeing with
Google patches suddenly have to do advocacy for Google?

And yes, for the record Felipe speaks for me pretty well.

Normal path of merging stuff to the kernel is

"Google develops it, then modifies it to address the review comments,
then it is merged, then it is deployed".

Unfortunately what Google did here is:

"Google develops it behind the closed door, then deploys it. When
asked for changes, Google expects someone else to create system
compatible with their existing solution, or else their patches being
merged."

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