lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jun]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    SubjectRe: suspend blockers & Android integration
    From
    On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
    >
    > Sadly the response from the Android team has been 100% uncompromising: either
    > suspend blockers or nothing.

    Well, we're willing to accept something that gives us the same
    functionality (thus rewriting the api several times to meet various
    objections, current discussions around
    constraint-based-implementations / pm-qos, etc). We believe we're
    solving a real problem here and have not seen a counter-proposal that
    accomplishes the same.

    Suggestions such as "just yell at developers for writing bad apps" or
    "it's the user's fault if they install a lousy app" or "make your app
    marketplace more restrictive" are not helpful. The technical
    discussions around alternatives are more so (though I do feel like
    we're going in circles in places), which again is why we're still here
    talking about this (that and Arve is about a billion times more
    patient and persistent than I am).

    We're not interested in massively rearchitecting our userspace to
    accomplish this (and the "rewrite your userspace!" proposals I've seen
    have had race conditions and/or significant more complexity than the
    wakelock model).

    ...

    > Also, why did the Android team start its contributions with such a difficult
    > and controversial kernel feature?

    We started here because it's possibly the only api level change we
    have -- almost everything else is driver or subarch type work or
    controversial but entirely self-contained (like the binder, which I
    would be shocked to see ever hit mainline). Assertions have been made
    that because the "android kernel" (not a term I like -- linux is
    linux, we have some assorted patches on top) has this feature it
    represents a difficulty for silicon vendors trying to support both
    Android projects and OEMs and mainline:

    See: http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/android-kernel-problems.html and
    various other rants about the evil terrible android forks, etc.

    So, we figure, let's sort out the hard problem first and then move on
    with our lives.

    > There is absolutely _zero_ technical reason why the Android team should
    > present this as as an all-or-nothing effort. Why not merge hw drivers first
    > (with suspend blockers commented or stubbed out), to reduce the fork distance?

    If that's the case then there is no problem and people could stop
    yelling at us and just submit their drivers. Awesome.

    I can't speak for all the nameless silicon vendors Greg represents,
    that we apparently are preventing from doing this (how? I don't
    know!), etc, but for my team maintaining multiple versions of drivers
    is a headache, we'd rather square away the wakelock debate first and
    figure something out there, as it just seems like a more logical
    approach. Maybe we're crazy.

    > Really, i myself have controversial kernel features pending all the time. They
    > dont go upstream for a few kernel releases - over a year sometimes - and
    > sometimes they never go upstream.
    >
    > But the fact that some feature of mine is pending doesnt give me the right to
    > go away sulking, it doesnt mean i will block the whole flow of patches in
    > retaliation (as you seem to suggest Google will now have the right to do) - i
    > simply try to work it out.

    We're not blocking anything. Hell, if people want drivers we wrote
    upstream and we're not fast enough for 'em, we publish everything via
    android.git.kernel.org, pretty aggressively rebase to follow latest
    mainline, and release everything under GPLv2, ready-to-go. We have to
    ship though, and as long as the version we maintain has the features
    we need to ship and the mainline version doesn't, we're going to ship
    based on our version, but this really shouldn't be surprising to
    anyone.

    > Lets be reasonable and work it all out, ok?

    We're trying.

    I do feel like we're suffering from lack of a clear "how do we move
    forward" path, and in particular from an environment where every time
    we do a bunch of work to address one set of concerns and entirely new
    set of people pop up with different concerns (sometimes contradicting
    the last round of changes we were asked to make, etc, etc).

    Brian


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-06-03 21:53    [W:0.027 / U:92.416 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site