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

Bernd Petrovitsch
2010-08-16T11:36:56Z

On Sam, 2010-08-14 at 09:50 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> 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?
[...]
> And yes, for the record Felipe speaks for me pretty well.

Not that I´m as "valuable" as the others quoted above: I have the same
impression.

> 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."

That basically sums it up as far as I see.

Bernd
--
Bernd Petrovitsch Email : bernd@petrovitsch.priv.at
LUGA : http://www.luga.at

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