From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266674AbUI0RgG (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Sep 2004 13:36:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266839AbUI0RgG (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Sep 2004 13:36:06 -0400 Received: from mail1.kontent.de ([81.88.34.36]:40078 "EHLO Mail1.KONTENT.De") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266674AbUI0RgB (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Sep 2004 13:36:01 -0400 From: Oliver Neukum To: Patrick Mochel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux PM core problems Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 19:34:32 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 Cc: David Brownell , Alan Stern , Pavel Machek , "" References: <200409270952.35467.david-b@pacbell.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200409271934.32759.oliver@neukum.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Am Montag, 27. September 2004 19:02 schrieb Patrick Mochel: > > On Mon, 27 Sep 2004, David Brownell wrote: > > > What, the audience that understands USB shouldn't be expected > > to (a) discuss USB-related PM issues, except on non-USB lists; or > > (b) involve developers who know other parts of PM? Nonsense. > > I didn't say that. But, the thread (especially given the Subject) is about > how the core works. And, most of the relevant USB people seem to be on > linux-kernel, or can easily be cc'd as well. And, what about Benh, who has > suffered through this problems on ppc for just as long? OK, the cc list can easily be extended. [..] > > There's been a notable lack of discussion about USB-related PM issues, > > except in these recent threads. So "read the archives" isn't constructive. > > This thread seems to lack USB-centricity. I know you've read the archives > and have participated in the discussions. But most, if not all, of the > ideas have come up in one form or another (though many with poor timing). > We're re-hashing the same discussion over and over. Not that that is a bad > thing, because eventually someone will get sick of reading it all just fix > the stupid code. > > My issue is that core problems are being talked about on a splinter list > and they should move to linux-kernel. But, if we're going to do that, it's > imperative to understand the history and the context, and know that we > have the same problem as we did 4 years ago (albeit with a different > playing field). Why? What makes this field so hard? Would you be happy if we listed the problems USB has with the current code? Regards Oliver