linux-kernel - Re: suspend blockers & Android integration

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]

Date:	Fri, 4 Jun 2010 02:08:03 -0700
From:	Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	tytso@....edu, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
	"Arve Hj?nnev?g" <arve@...roid.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@...ia.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>,
	Linux OMAP Mailing List <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux PM <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: suspend blockers & Android integration

On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 1:55 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> * Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com> wrote:
>> > After basically two years of growing your fork (and some attempts to get
>> > your drivers into drivers/staging/ - from where they have meanwhile
>> > dropped out again) you re-started with the worst possible thing to merge:
>> > a big and difficult kernel feature affecting many subsystems. Why?
>>
>> Because a large number of our drivers depend on it.
>
> So why not put in some stub or so? Auto-suspend/suspend-blockers is a feature,
> and drivers ought to be able to work without a feature as well. Keep the
> suspend-blocker changes in the android tree initially, and get the main body
> of changes out first, and establish a flow of timely changes. That reduces
> your maintenance burden and increases trust for future changes - a win-win
> situation.

The impression I got from previous discussions was that upstream did
not want things that were built conditionally around APIs that did not
exist in mainline nor stub implementations for things that were not
agreed upon.

We could easily either #if defined(CONFIG_SUSPEND_BLOCKERS) or submit
a suspend_blockers.h that just makes everything a no-op, if that's an
acceptable transition vehicle.  I didn't think either were an option
open to us.

> In any case, this is not to suggest that the suspend-blocker bits are
> 'impossible' to merge. I just say that if you start with your most difficult
> feature you should not be surprised to be on the receiving end of a 1000+
> mails flamewar on lkml ;-)

Yeah, I do understand that we're not making it easy for ourselves
here.  I think we hit the point where Rafael and Matthew signed off on
things and thought "aha, linux-pm maintainers are happy, now we're
getting somewhere" only to realize the light at the end of the tunnel
was a bit further out than we anticipated ^^

Brian
--
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/