Re: lowmemory android driver not needed?

[KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>]

Hi

> [Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>]
> > > but I don't think driver/staging is good place for non driver code.
> > > The problem is, any patch must be reviewed by stakeholder, not maintenar only.
> > > then, the patch should post lkml and subsystem mailing list at first.
> > > 
> > > I like reviewed code than unreviewed code.
> > 
> > Heh, so do I.
> > 
> > And this is an odd "driver", I do know that.
> > 
> > But it solves a real problem that can't be solved any other way
> > currently, which is needed for a real system that is shipping.  So, if
> > it can't be solved any other way, do you have a way this kind of thing
> > could be more "correct"?

I agree this patch address correct requirement.


> I think a lot of the confusion here comes from Arve's earlier (very
> terse) remark:  "I never expected it to be merged. I wrote it to allow 
> us to ship a product."
> 
> At the risk of putting words in his mouth, I believe this should be
> parsed as "we wrote this to solve problems necessary to ship products
> and did not expect it to be merged to mainline as-is".  

ok. I believe you.
I also hope that I'm working with various background guys.


thanks.

> We'd love to get support for low memory process killing that works for
> our app model into the mainline.  
>
> If that's by reworking this driver
> until it's acceptable or by implementing the same functionality a
> different way, making use of some other subsystem, or whatever, we're
> not particularly picky.  Our goal is, eventually, to maintain as few
> patches outside of the kernel as possible so things can build "out of
> the box."