Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755498AbZCDAoY (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Mar 2009 19:44:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752380AbZCDAoQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Mar 2009 19:44:16 -0500 Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.26.193]:33987 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752379AbZCDAoP (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Mar 2009 19:44:15 -0500 Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 01:47:01 +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: <20090304004701.GB6280@elf.ucw.cz> References: <200902192215.18365.rjw@sisk.pl> <200902282353.39763.rjw@sisk.pl> <200903011020.53130.rjw@sisk.pl> <20090303135143.GA5060@elf.ucw.cz> 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: 2175 Lines: 50 On Tue 2009-03-03 16:06:02, Arve Hj?nnev?g wrote: > 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. Yep. > >> 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. Thanks. -- (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/