[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201005132311.26293.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 23:11:26 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>
Cc: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...o99.com>,
Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>,
Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...prootsystems.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>, magnus.damm@...il.com,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
mark gross <mgross@...ux.intel.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Geoff Smith <geoffx.smith@...el.com>,
Benoît Cousson <b-cousson@...com>,
linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@...il.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lrg@...mlogic.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 6)
On Thursday 13 May 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 12:36:34PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 20:11 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > See feature-removal-schedule.txt. So far we have no indication that it's
> > > going to be replaced, because nobody has actually suggested a working
> > > way to do this better. If we had a concrete implementation proposal for
> > > that then we'd be in a pretty different position right now.
> >
> > Ok, feature-removal-schedule.txt applies to everything tho. What your
> > saying is that if this interface only last a short time it might take 6
> > months, if it last for a long time it would take longer. There's no easy
> > way to know that Google is the only user after some amount of time
> > passes.
>
> If the interface is there for a long time, it's because we haven't come
> up with anything better. And if we haven't come up with anything better,
> the interface deserves to be there.
Moreover, the interface is already in use out-of-tree and that usage is
actually _growing_, so we have a growing number of out-of-tree drivers that
aren't megrgeable for this very reason.
I don't see any _realistic_ way of solving this problem other than merging
the opportunistic suspend. If anyone sees one, and I mean _realistic_ and
_practically_ _feasible_, please tell me.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists