Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756422Ab0HKWDt (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Aug 2010 18:03:49 -0400 Received: from mail-fx0-f46.google.com ([209.85.161.46]:39846 "EHLO mail-fx0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755029Ab0HKWDs convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Aug 2010 18:03:48 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=KTuYp+dYQWh92i5kQrgMRZcuowwxFuuVblpAvDKb5gCg1eRFc1YI6wOon/DAoyIvHB Y8hltXQUuow9T7IgNpSaySF+cyC0kZl1YzbYB+Ovt9fB9/lhYIVd7wTAAd5AJgSRDOV0 c+h9oe4mHFbR7uD1oEoJcsv+Vxq91eajLJLzs= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20100806225453.GA3947@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20100807061558.GA28087@thunk.org> <20100808155719.GB3635@thunk.org> <20100808213821.GD3635@thunk.org> <20100811193106.GB24435@thunk.org> Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 01:03:46 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, take three From: Felipe Contreras To: Brian Swetland Cc: "Ted Ts'o" , david@lang.hm, "Paul E. McKenney" , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, arve@android.com, mjg59@srcf.ucam.org, pavel@ucw.cz, florian@mickler.org, rjw@sisk.pl, stern@rowland.harvard.edu, peterz@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, menage@google.com, david-b@pacbell.net, James.Bottomley@suse.de, arjan@infradead.org, swmike@swm.pp.se, galibert@pobox.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2127 Lines: 46 On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Brian Swetland wrote: > On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 2:25 PM, Felipe Contreras > wrote: >> Now, only Android has decided to use suspend blockers, that's a >> *fact*, and I wanted to narrow the discussion to Android in order to >> make it easier to understand that Android doesn't need suspend >> blockers, once we have agreed that, then I'd gladly discuss it's >> merits outside Android. > > On behalf of the Android folks, we don't agree with this.  If you're > going to wait until we suddenly change our minds, I think you're going > to be in for a long wait. I'm sure as a team that's the case, but you can't know what's in the mind of everyone at Google (not Android). >> I argued to you that suspend-blockers are not required in Android, and >> suddenly you decide we should agree to disagree without arguing back? >> Well, suit yourself. I still maintain that suspend-blockers is just an >> expensive workaround, and in some cases actually degrades power >> consumption; the right solution is much more sophisticated. > > Once "the right solution" exists and solves our problems, we'll > certainly look into switching over to it.  I've yet to see a proposal > in all this arguing that appears to me to be an improvement over what > we have today with suspend blockers.  I find the "don't do what you're > doing because someday, somebody will do it better" to be an > uncompelling argument. That was not an argument, it was an opinion. If you want an argument go back to read this one: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1021834 > Given your opinion that Android lacks multitasking (what? really?) This is what I'm talking about when I say multi-tasking, Android certainly doesn't have anything remotely like that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7emvUBpEkbU -- Felipe Contreras -- 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/