linux-kernel - Re: [RFD] Automatic suspend

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 1 Mar 2009 10:11:18 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc:	Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	"Woodruff, Richard" <r-woodruff2@...com>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Kyle Moffett <kyle@...fetthome.net>,
	Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>,
	pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...el.suspend2.net>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
	mark gross <mgross@...ux.intel.com>,
	Uli Luckas <u.luckas@...d.de>,
	Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...ia.com>,
	Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFD] Automatic suspend

On Sunday 01 March 2009, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-02-28 at 16:06 -0800, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> 
> I'm not taking a position on the merit of the wakelocks per se nor
> whether Rafael is right or wrong here, I haven't looked at the problem
> closely enough. I just want to react to this:
> 
> > The basic concept was developed long before android was a public
> > project.
> 
> This isn't going to bring you any good will. We don't care what was done
> before it was a public project. That has strictly no relevance to how it
> should be submitted upstream.
> 
> How long the code has been simmering internally to company X or Y or
> even in a public tree doesn't matter. Some times, yes, we do take
> something as a whole, when it makes no sense to do otherwise (a driver,
> a filesystem, ...). 
> 
> But something like what you propose, it seems, could easily be broken
> down into a basic concept, on which features are added one after the
> other, and in this case, it's the right way to go, simply because it's
> easier to argue for the basic concept alone if you don't have to handle
> comments froms people who don't agree with aspect A B or C of the other
> features involved.
> 
> And if the basic concept doesn't get accepted in the first place, then
> the whole point is moot...

Exactly.  This is what I've been trying to say for some time now.

Thanks Ben!

Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/