Re: [PATCH 1/8] PM: Opportunistic suspend support.

James Bottomley
2010-05-26T17:24:58Z

On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 19:01 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 18:59 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > On Wed 2010-05-26 18:28:28, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 11:18 -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > > Or make the suspend manager a C proglet and provide a JNI interface,
> > > > > or whatever.
> > > >
> > > > It's a fairly large piece of code to try to rewrite in C, so I don't
> > > > think that's feasible on a reasonable timescale. Android does have the
> > > > concept of special sockets that can be used to communicate from less to
> > > > more privileged processes (it has a very segmented runtime model), so
> > > > these might be usable ... they have a drawback that they're essentially
> > > > named pipes, so no multiplexing, but one per suspend influencing C
> > > > process shouldn't be a huge burden.
> > >
> > > It wouldn't need to convert the whole Frameworks layer into C, just
> > > enough to manage the suspend state.
> > >
> > > Anyway, I think there's been enough arguments against even the concept
> > > of opportunistic/auto-suspend, and I for one will object with a NAK if
> > > Rafael send this to Linus.
> >
> > It was submitted already. I tried to followup with NAK, but can't
> > currently see it in the archive.

You mean this one:

https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/linux-pm/2010-May/025689.html

?

> It was apparently hidden on some funky list.

Sending a PM pull request to the PM list doesn't really strike me as the
height of obfuscation. Plus almost everyone who objected was on the cc
list.

> Hiding pull requests is bad enough, but hiding pull requests for
> contended features is just plain wrong.

I don't think it's a conspiracy ... just standard operating procedure
for this subsystem. I do think cc'ing lkml is good practise (having
been yelled at for not doing that in the past) but it's certainly not
universal practise.

James