[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1005261948290.2995@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 19:51:17 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>
cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Arve Hj?nnev?g <arve@...roid.com>,
Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Linux-pm mailing list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...onice.net>,
Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@...il.com>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, tytso@....edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] PM: Opportunistic suspend support.
On Wed, 26 May 2010, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 19:01 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 18:59 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > On Wed 2010-05-26 18:28:28, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 11:18 -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > > > Or make the suspend manager a C proglet and provide a JNI interface,
> > > > > > or whatever.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's a fairly large piece of code to try to rewrite in C, so I don't
> > > > > think that's feasible on a reasonable timescale. Android does have the
> > > > > concept of special sockets that can be used to communicate from less to
> > > > > more privileged processes (it has a very segmented runtime model), so
> > > > > these might be usable ... they have a drawback that they're essentially
> > > > > named pipes, so no multiplexing, but one per suspend influencing C
> > > > > process shouldn't be a huge burden.
> > > >
> > > > It wouldn't need to convert the whole Frameworks layer into C, just
> > > > enough to manage the suspend state.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, I think there's been enough arguments against even the concept
> > > > of opportunistic/auto-suspend, and I for one will object with a NAK if
> > > > Rafael send this to Linus.
> > >
> > > It was submitted already. I tried to followup with NAK, but can't
> > > currently see it in the archive.
>
> You mean this one:
>
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/linux-pm/2010-May/025689.html
>
> ?
>
> > It was apparently hidden on some funky list.
>
> Sending a PM pull request to the PM list doesn't really strike me as the
> height of obfuscation. Plus almost everyone who objected was on the cc
> list.
>
> > Hiding pull requests is bad enough, but hiding pull requests for
> > contended features is just plain wrong.
>
> I don't think it's a conspiracy ... just standard operating procedure
> for this subsystem. I do think cc'ing lkml is good practise (having
> been yelled at for not doing that in the past) but it's certainly not
> universal practise.
At least it would be good style for a topic which is
1) contended like this one
2) pushing an intrusive feature last minute which has been merged
into the pm tree barely two days ago.
Darn, _we_ have to deal with that forever as it sets a crappy user
space ABI in stone.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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