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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <AANLkTi=9v0o5pQ6s=sjjnk0udmrBAiy4wD+h2vrn_h8=@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 12 Aug 2010 10:33:01 -0700
From:	Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>
To:	Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@...il.com>
Cc:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, david@...g.hm,
	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, 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 9:57 AM, Felipe Contreras
<felipe.contreras@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Correct, but still a considerable amount of changes would need to be
> done, which _nobody_ has expressed any intention to do.
>
> Besides, IMO a good mobile platform would share as much as possible
> with desktop software. Say, the improvements Nokia has endorsed on the
> Telepathy IM framework can only help the people already using it on
> the desktop.
>
> However, personally, if I ever have to do './configure
> --enable-suspend-blockers', I would think that something that just
> doesn't belong has creped by to user-space. I don't see why there
> should something particularly different between mobile phones and
> laptops, and I think this has been already expressed over, and over.

So, because you feel that phones should be little laptops you oppose
providing (optional!) support for environments that take a different
view to that?

I'll echo Ted's question -- is this the opinion of the kernel
community at large?  If so, there's not much point in continuing to
have discussions around suspend blockers.

I think that we're still a ways away from a world where we can treat
mobile devices the same as laptops and get reasonable user
experiences.  I think it's unfortunate if the attitude here is "wait
and someday it won't matter", especially because I'm skeptical that
we're likely to hit that "someday" any time soon.

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/