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]

Message-Id: <1235888923.7388.121.camel@pasglop>
Date:	Sun, 01 Mar 2009 17:28:43 +1100
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, 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 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...

Cheers,
Ben.

--
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/