Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756618AbZCDAGe (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Mar 2009 19:06:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755253AbZCDAGK (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Mar 2009 19:06:10 -0500 Received: from qw-out-2122.google.com ([74.125.92.26]:9027 "EHLO qw-out-2122.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754626AbZCDAGI convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Mar 2009 19:06:08 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20090303135143.GA5060@elf.ucw.cz> References: <200902192215.18365.rjw@sisk.pl> <200902282353.39763.rjw@sisk.pl> <200903011020.53130.rjw@sisk.pl> <20090303135143.GA5060@elf.ucw.cz> Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 16:06:02 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFD] Automatic suspend From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arve_Hj=F8nnev=E5g?= To: Pavel Machek 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2330 Lines: 53 On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 5:51 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > 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 think this could go either way. If the system is usable, it may get more use from developers that know how to improve a specific subsystem to not use timeouts. Or, it may be considered good enough, and nobody bothers coming up with a correct solution. I think the latter is what you are worried will happen. > >> >> 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. No, I think many uses of timeouts are a ugly hack, not all, but OK I will try to move timeout support to a separate patch. -- Arve Hj?nnev?g -- 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/