Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760387Ab0HLQqM (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Aug 2010 12:46:12 -0400 Received: from mail-bw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:49325 "EHLO mail-bw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752657Ab0HLQqL convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Aug 2010 12:46:11 -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 :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=EAsAqGtucCtuhBBz/VNq0P4JhrufArglmYuZXE9iLEqhlZcI1UknfQdsRWI4c8U2u0 SGego1jsDHEOyEx0apT3bDWxrxr2QZEyKyzAM48cK46ml9Km/h8qMpTQPQ2oohOGCfgH FffrIaxehpsxJKkN2bgn0kCapLQamQvV17kFo= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20100812125248.GA2763@thunk.org> References: <20100812125248.GA2763@thunk.org> Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 19:46:03 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, take three From: Felipe Contreras To: "Ted Ts'o" , Felipe Contreras , Alan Stern , paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Alan Cox , david@lang.hm, Brian Swetland , 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, peterz@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de, 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: 1698 Lines: 40 On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Ted Ts'o wrote: > On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 03:28:01PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote: >> >> 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) > > Do you believe you speak for all of LKML? No. I'm speaking for myself, and that includes a lot of what people on LKML have already said. > 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? All the Android community had to do is push the drivers *without* suspend blockers, then the Android kernel wouldn't be so different and thus wouldn't be considered a fork. AFAIU the kernel side wakelocks are already in the kernel, so there's no excuse not to merge the drivers. Then people would stop blaming Google for forking the kernel. Nobody from the "media" cares about suspend blockers; they are a small patch which cannot be considered a fork, more like a hack, like many other platforms have. -- 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/