linux-kernel - Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, take three

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]

Message-ID: <AANLkTimAKwDPYZeCj_UEyXf-6DxLg8=Zi-=tFKzzgvQi@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 12 Aug 2010 01:03:46 +0300
From:	Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@...il.com>
To:	Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>
Cc:	"Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, david@...g.hm,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	arve@...roid.com, mjg59@...f.ucam.org, pavel@....cz,
	florian@...kler.org, rjw@...k.pl, stern@...land.harvard.edu,
	peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
	menage@...gle.com, david-b@...bell.net, James.Bottomley@...e.de,
	arjan@...radead.org, swmike@....pp.se, galibert@...ox.com,
	dipankar@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, take three

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 2:25 PM, Felipe Contreras
> <felipe.contreras@...il.com> wrote:
>> Now, only Android has decided to use suspend blockers, that's a
>> *fact*, and I wanted to narrow the discussion to Android in order to
>> make it easier to understand that Android doesn't need suspend
>> blockers, once we have agreed that, then I'd gladly discuss it's
>> merits outside Android.
>
> On behalf of the Android folks, we don't agree with this.  If you're
> going to wait until we suddenly change our minds, I think you're going
> to be in for a long wait.

I'm sure as a team that's the case, but you can't know what's in the
mind of everyone at Google (not Android).

>> I argued to you that suspend-blockers are not required in Android, and
>> suddenly you decide we should agree to disagree without arguing back?
>> Well, suit yourself. I still maintain that suspend-blockers is just an
>> expensive workaround, and in some cases actually degrades power
>> consumption; the right solution is much more sophisticated.
>
> Once "the right solution" exists and solves our problems, we'll
> certainly look into switching over to it.  I've yet to see a proposal
> in all this arguing that appears to me to be an improvement over what
> we have today with suspend blockers.  I find the "don't do what you're
> doing because someday, somebody will do it better" to be an
> uncompelling argument.

That was not an argument, it was an opinion. If you want an argument
go back to read this one:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1021834

> Given your opinion that Android lacks multitasking (what? really?)

This is what I'm talking about when I say multi-tasking, Android
certainly doesn't have anything remotely like that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7emvUBpEkbU

-- 
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/