From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756461Ab0EZWME (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 May 2010 18:12:04 -0400 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:44777 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753119Ab0EZWMA (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 May 2010 18:12:00 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] PM: Opportunistic suspend support. Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 00:13:21 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.4 (Linux/2.6.34-tst; KDE/4.3.5; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Pavel Machek , James Bottomley , Pekka Enberg , "Arve Hj?nnev?g" , Florian Mickler , Alan Stern , Dmitry Torokhov , "Linux-pm mailing list" , Kernel development list , Len Brown , Randy Dunlap , Andrew Morton , Andi Kleen , Cornelia Huck , Tejun Heo , Jesse Barnes , Nigel Cunningham , Ming Lei , Wu Fengguang , Maxim Levitsky , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Matthew Garrett , Greg KH , tytso@mit.edu References: <1274863342.5882.4850.camel@twins> <20100526165919.GB2089@elf.ucw.cz> <1274893309.1674.1773.camel@laptop> In-Reply-To: <1274893309.1674.1773.camel@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201005270013.21412.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 26 May 2010, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 18:59 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > On Wed 2010-05-26 18:28:28, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 11:18 -0500, James Bottomley wrote: > > > > > Or make the suspend manager a C proglet and provide a JNI interface, > > > > > or whatever. > > > > > > > > It's a fairly large piece of code to try to rewrite in C, so I don't > > > > think that's feasible on a reasonable timescale. Android does have the > > > > concept of special sockets that can be used to communicate from less to > > > > more privileged processes (it has a very segmented runtime model), so > > > > these might be usable ... they have a drawback that they're essentially > > > > named pipes, so no multiplexing, but one per suspend influencing C > > > > process shouldn't be a huge burden. > > > > > > It wouldn't need to convert the whole Frameworks layer into C, just > > > enough to manage the suspend state. > > > > > > Anyway, I think there's been enough arguments against even the concept > > > of opportunistic/auto-suspend, and I for one will object with a NAK if > > > Rafael send this to Linus. > > > > It was submitted already. I tried to followup with NAK, but can't > > currently see it in the archive. > > It was apparently hidden on some funky list. Hiding pull requests is bad > enough, but hiding pull requests for contended features is just plain > wrong. It was not intentionally hidden. I think my mailer did that wrong because the CC list was too long or something like this. I surely intended to send it to the LKML, so sorry for the inconvenience. Rafael