Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761497Ab0HMLJJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Aug 2010 07:09:09 -0400 Received: from mail-gy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.160.174]:39758 "EHLO mail-gy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754834Ab0HMLJG convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Aug 2010 07:09:06 -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=B1psVEpkPUOezIV6LM82QJAxech0U75HbTIZythLebDRg8khrueFUYTbKm40SbrctC XWXxvsnWxPJQalJFk3xcYjiejYV9gNQ42sGc3baS/QgGfhR9PoyhGRNcujtsm+crFma0 FPLoCJJsyrOpOXuFXUgkmOzqsQU5Qha8ronxY= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20100812125712.48b7fc26@virtuousgeek.org> References: <20100812125248.GA2763@thunk.org> <20100812182128.GC2763@thunk.org> <20100812125712.48b7fc26@virtuousgeek.org> Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 14:09:03 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, take three From: Felipe Contreras To: Jesse Barnes Cc: Brian Swetland , "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 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: 2040 Lines: 39 On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Jesse Barnes wrote: > 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. If Android guys provided a bare minimal Debian system with suspend blockers that people can take a look at and try, I think that would be a good proof of concept. And a bare minimum to get the patches merged. > 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? :) I certainly have been the more vocal recently, but if that's confusing you, I can shut up and let others do the argumentation. I remember at least Alan Cox, Alan Stern, Thomas Gleixner, Kevin Hilman, Felipe Balbi, Tony Lindgren, and Igor Stopa against them. -- 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/