* Re: Linux PM core problems
[not found] ` <Pine.LNX.4.50.0409270953140.32506-100000@monsoon.he.net>
@ 2004-09-27 17:34 ` Oliver Neukum
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Oliver Neukum @ 2004-09-27 17:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patrick Mochel, linux-kernel
Cc: David Brownell, Alan Stern, Pavel Machek, greg
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread