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  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" <>
To:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <>
Cc:	Arve Hjønnevåg <>,
	Pavel Machek <>,
	Alan Stern <>,
	"Woodruff, Richard" <>,
	Arjan van de Ven <>,
	Kyle Moffett <>,
	Oliver Neukum <>,
	pm list <>,
	LKML <>,
	Nigel Cunningham <>,
	Matthew Garrett <>,
	mark gross <>,
	Uli Luckas <>,
	Igor Stoppa <>,
	Brian Swetland <>,
	Len Brown <>
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!

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists