linux-kernel - Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)

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:	Sat, 5 Jun 2010 22:53:50 +0300
From:	Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@...il.com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>,
	Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
	tytso@....edu, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux PM <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Linux OMAP Mailing List <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	felipe.balbi@...ia.com, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)

On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 10:04 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> On Saturday 05 June 2010, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 11:47 PM, Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 31 May 2010 22:12:19 +0200
>> > Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org> wrote:
>> >> If I have a simple shell script then I don't wanna jump through
>> >> hoops just to please your fragile kernel.
>> >
>> > Also why should that code on one device kill my uptime and on the
>> > other machine (my wall-plugged desktop) work just well? That doesn't
>> > sound right.
>>
>> Sounds perfectly right to me; one code runs perfectly fine on one
>> machine, and on the other doesn't even compile. Well, sure, it wasn't
>> written with that use-case in mind.
>>
>> > Clearly opportunistic suspend is a workaround for battery-driven devices
>> > and no general solution. But it is not specific to android. At least
>> > not inherently. It could be useful for any embedded or mobile device
>> > where you can clearly distinguish important functions from convenience
>> > functions.
>>
>> Yes, it could, but why go for the hacky solution when we know how to
>> achieve the ideal one?
>>
>> > I really can't understand the whole _fundamental_ opposition to this
>> > design choice.
>>
>> Nobody is using it, except Android. Nobody will use it, except Android.
>
> That's like saying "Android is not a legitimate user of the kernel".  Is that
> you wanted to say?

Read the context: opportunistic suspend, which is considered a
workaround, which requires new user-space API for suspend blockers,
might be remotely considered for inclusion *if* it indeed solves a
problem for battery-driven devices, which other parties also
experience and could benefit from this solution.

The answer: no, it doesn't: only Android user-space will benefit from it.

>> I have seen recent proposals that don't require changing the whole
>> user-space. That might actually be used by other players.
>
> Sure, an approach benefitting more platforms than just Android would be better,
> but saying that the kernel shouldn't address the Android's specific needs as a
> rule if no one else has those needs too is quite too far reaching to me.

There are no Android specific needs, why should certain user-space
ecosystem need certain API that somehow *nobody* else does? I think in
this huge thread it has become obvious that people are reluctant to
this idea... whatever problem Android user-space presents (I don't
think there's any), it can be solved for "he rest of the world" too,
and such generic solution is worth exploring.

-- 
Felipe Contreras
--
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/