lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [May]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/8] PM: Opportunistic suspend support.
    From
    Date
    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




    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-05-26 19:27    [W:0.021 / U:209.092 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site