Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755853AbZCCNtV (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Mar 2009 08:49:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750985AbZCCNtK (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Mar 2009 08:49:10 -0500 Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.26.193]:57275 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750706AbZCCNtJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Mar 2009 08:49:09 -0500 Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 14:51:43 +0100 From: Pavel Machek To: Arve Hj?nnev?g Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Alan Stern , "Woodruff, Richard" , Arjan van de Ven , Kyle Moffett , Oliver Neukum , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , pm list , LKML , Nigel Cunningham , Matthew Garrett , mark gross , Uli Luckas , Igor Stoppa , Brian Swetland , Len Brown Subject: Re: [RFD] Automatic suspend Message-ID: <20090303135143.GA5060@elf.ucw.cz> References: <200902192215.18365.rjw@sisk.pl> <200902282353.39763.rjw@sisk.pl> <200903011020.53130.rjw@sisk.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1920 Lines: 43 Hi! > >> > Not ignoring, but considering them as insufficient. ?And since they've already > >> > been considered as insufficient, there's no point repeating them over and over > >> > again. ?That doesn't make them any better. > >> > >> The problem is that what you consider insufficient is what allows us > >> to ship a product. > > > > This doesn't matter a whit, because the mainline kernel is not just your > > product. > > Unless you are saying that changes in the mainline kernel does not > need be usable in practice, then it does matter. If we remove the > feature that allows us to interact with existing code, it will take > much longer before it is usable by anyone. Well, taking longer before "being usable" is good tradeoff if it means "we get cleaner/actually correct system in mainline sooner". > >> I don't think I am the only one who want this code in the mainline > >> kernel. Many people want to use the android platform, and support in > >> the mainline kernel would be beneficial to some of them. I made many > >> requested changes to my code that provides no benefit to us, but I > >> have not made any changes that breaks our own use. > > > > OK, please resubmit the patches, then. > > I submitted them three weeks ago. I'll submit a new set after I rename > the api (presumably to suspend_block(er)) but I would like more > agreement on the timeout issue first. I do believe that everyone (including you :-) agrees that timeouts are ugly hack. So just reorder the series so they come at the end. 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/