[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFD] Automatic suspend

> >> > 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.
(cesky, pictures)
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-03-03 14:51    [W:0.308 / U:4.056 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site