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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 4 Sep 2010 10:57:46 +0200
From:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>
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

Hi!

> > > > 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?
> > > 
> > > Are you willing to tell ZDNet and the Slashdot fanboys that it's OK
> > > for Suspend blockers to live in a separate tree, and it's not a case
> > > of OMG!  Google is forking the kernel?
> > > 
> > > If you could speak out a passionately on those forums as you have
> > > here, that would be great.
> > 
> > Ted, what is going on here? Are you suggesting people disagreeing with
> > Google patches suddenly have to do advocacy for Google?
> > 
> > And yes, for the record Felipe speaks for me pretty well.
> > 
> > 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".
> 
> Pavel, you should know better than this.  You've been working on Linux
> long enough to know that development doesn't happen this way.

Well, I know that world is not always ideal, but it still surprised me
how far from "ideal" Google got.... 

> Although it would have been nice for Google to work more directly with
> upstream on their suspend blockers for Android, I don't think they
> could have made their product development cycle a slave to the politics
> of upstream development.

"Slave of upstream politics" would be going all the way; seeing the
patches before there were million devices out there would also help a
lot...

> Fortunately in this case the problem doesn't seem to be fatal.  We've
> already established that the userland API portion of suspend blockers
> could be implemented in userspace with a bit more work, given that the
> kernel problems with suspend/resume and events are addressed.

You are an optimist. Yes, I also hope it will work out fine, but...
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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/