Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755326Ab0HLT5u (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Aug 2010 15:57:50 -0400 Received: from cpoproxy1-pub.bluehost.com ([69.89.21.11]:43372 "HELO cpoproxy1-pub.bluehost.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751914Ab0HLT5t (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Aug 2010 15:57:49 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=virtuousgeek.org; h=Received:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:X-Mailer:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Identified-User; b=F0iTp/7A5zn4OYbJ5gK9Pi08vuhnnDdwC0+lOMuIW9BwKECvEZsoODzW8OelKMVWJ6lPtoHXc387kz9VTjWNEf5dIC/29w9lED4kioWGgIU6eTYvN6QUDqkazFobJfSs; Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 12:57:12 -0700 From: Jesse Barnes To: Brian Swetland Cc: Felipe Contreras , "Ted Ts'o" , Alan Stern , paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Alan Cox , david@lang.hm, 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 Subject: Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, take three Message-ID: <20100812125712.48b7fc26@virtuousgeek.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20100812125248.GA2763@thunk.org> <20100812182128.GC2763@thunk.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.6 (GTK+ 2.18.9; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Identified-User: {10642:box514.bluehost.com:virtuous:virtuousgeek.org} {sentby:smtp auth 75.110.194.140 authed with jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org} Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1484 Lines: 29 On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 12:19:34 -0700 Brian Swetland wrote: > Question though -- has every feature ever added to the kernel been a > feature that there's pre-existing usage of? Seems like a chicken and > egg problem. Also, some people seem to think there's value in being > able to build kernels "out of the box" that work with the Android > userspace -- given that there are a few devices out there that have > that userspace on 'em. We generally try to merge new features like this along with code that uses said feature, but there are always exceptions. We've merged code one release or more before the new code gets used for example, which is fine IMO. What we don't want to see is some new drop of code added and abandoned, but you already knew that. At any rate, if Felipe is the only one arguing against including suspend blockers in the kernel, you're probably in good shape. Based on my (rather cursory I admit) evaluation of this thread, it seems like reasonable people agree that there's a place for a suspend blocker like API in the kernel, and that dynamic power management is also highly desirable. So where's the git pull request already? :) -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center -- 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/