From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752673Ab0IDI55 (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Sep 2010 04:57:57 -0400 Received: from ksp.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.26.206]:50688 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751364Ab0IDI5z (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Sep 2010 04:57:55 -0400 Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2010 10:57:46 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: Jesse Barnes Cc: "Ted Ts'o" , Felipe Contreras , Alan Stern , paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Alan Cox , david@lang.hm, Brian Swetland , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, arve@android.com, mjg59@srcf.ucam.org, florian@mickler.org, rjw@sisk.pl, peterz@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de, menage@google.com, david-b@pacbell.net, James.Bottomley@suse.de, arjan@infradead.org, swmike@swm.pp.se, galibert@pobox.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com Subject: Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, take three Message-ID: <20100904085746.GC2569@elf.ucw.cz> References: <20100812125248.GA2763@thunk.org> <20100814075000.GB27430@elf.ucw.cz> <20100816081655.3e9e29f7@virtuousgeek.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100816081655.3e9e29f7@virtuousgeek.org> X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > > > The question is why are we adding a user-space API that: > > > > 1) no user-space beside Android has expresses interest in implementing > > > > 2) is dubious whether the benefits are worth the pain for non-Android > > > > user-space > > > > 3) will become less and less attractive as dynamic PM gets closer to > > > > the sweet-spot, and then surpass it > > > > 4) Android can keep in a separate tree until it's clear in the linux > > > > community that it's useful (if it ever happens) > > > > > > So, Felipe, > > > > > > Do you believe you speak for all of LKML? > > > > > > Are you willing to tell ZDNet and the Slashdot fanboys that it's OK > > > for Suspend blockers to live in a separate tree, and it's not a case > > > of OMG! Google is forking the kernel? > > > > > > If you could speak out a passionately on those forums as you have > > > here, that would be great. > > > > Ted, what is going on here? Are you suggesting people disagreeing with > > Google patches suddenly have to do advocacy for Google? > > > > And yes, for the record Felipe speaks for me pretty well. > > > > Normal path of merging stuff to the kernel is > > > > "Google develops it, then modifies it to address the review comments, > > then it is merged, then it is deployed". > > Pavel, you should know better than this. You've been working on Linux > long enough to know that development doesn't happen this way. Well, I know that world is not always ideal, but it still surprised me how far from "ideal" Google got.... > Although it would have been nice for Google to work more directly with > upstream on their suspend blockers for Android, I don't think they > could have made their product development cycle a slave to the politics > of upstream development. "Slave of upstream politics" would be going all the way; seeing the patches before there were million devices out there would also help a lot... > Fortunately in this case the problem doesn't seem to be fatal. We've > already established that the userland API portion of suspend blockers > could be implemented in userspace with a bit more work, given that the > kernel problems with suspend/resume and events are addressed. You are an optimist. Yes, I also hope it will work out fine, but... Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html