[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100527071100.3a38bbac@schatten.dmk.lab>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 07:11:00 +0200
From: Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>
To: Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@...il.com>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, felipe.balbi@...ia.com,
Linux OMAP Mailing List <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)
On Wed, 26 May 2010 22:03:37 +0200
Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@...il.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 9:56 PM, Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org> wrote:
>
> > Your approach definitely sounds better than the current solution.
> > What about mapping suspend blocker functionality later on, when this
> > interface exists, on to this new approach and deprecating it?
>
> What about coming back after some while with the appropriate solution
> when it's ready instead of stubbornly pushing crap?
>
> ~Vitaly
Because quite frankly, for a good part of linux users, suspend blockers
is already in the kernel. It's just an historical mistake that they are
not in the linux kernel's hosted on kernel.org.
So why don't we do what we always do? Improve existing interfaces step
by step?
Top Down approaches fail from time to time. Also it is not clear, that
that proposed interface works for the use cases. This has to be proven
by providing an implementation.
Cheers,
Flo
--
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