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]

Date:	Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:36:56 +0200
From:	Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd@...rovitsch.priv.at>
To:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc:	"Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
	Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@...il.com>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	david@...g.hm, Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
	linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	arve@...roid.com, mjg59@...f.ucam.org, florian@...kler.org,
	rjw@...k.pl, 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 Sam, 2010-08-14 at 09:50 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Thu 2010-08-12 08:52:49, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 03:28:01PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > > 
> > > The question is why are we adding a user-space API that:
> > >  1) no user-space beside Android has expresses interest in implementing
> > >  2) is dubious whether the benefits are worth the pain for non-Android
> > > user-space
> > >  3) will become less and less attractive as dynamic PM gets closer to
> > > the sweet-spot, and then surpass it
> > >  4) Android can keep in a separate tree until it's clear in the linux
> > > community that it's useful (if it ever happens)
> > 
> > So, Felipe,
> > 
> > Do you believe you speak for all of LKML?
[...]
> And yes, for the record Felipe speaks for me pretty well.

Not that I´m as "valuable" as the others quoted above: I have the same
impression.

> Normal path of merging stuff to the kernel is
> 
> "Google develops it, then modifies it to address the review comments,
> then it is merged, then it is deployed".
> 
> Unfortunately what Google did here is:
> 
> "Google develops it behind the closed door, then deploys it. When
> asked for changes, Google expects someone else to create system
> compatible with their existing solution, or else their patches being
> merged."

That basically sums it up as far as I see.

	Bernd
-- 
Bernd Petrovitsch                  Email : bernd@...rovitsch.priv.at
                     LUGA : http://www.luga.at

--
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/