Re: [PATCH 1/8] PM: Opportunistic suspend support.

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Wed, 26 May 2010, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 19:01 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 18:59 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > On Wed 2010-05-26 18:28:28, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 11:18 -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > > > Or make the suspend manager a C proglet and provide a JNI interface,
> > > > > > or whatever.
> > > > > 
> > > > > It's a fairly large piece of code to try to rewrite in C, so I don't
> > > > > think that's feasible on a reasonable timescale.  Android does have the
> > > > > concept of special sockets that can be used to communicate from less to
> > > > > more privileged processes (it has a very segmented runtime model), so
> > > > > these might be usable ... they have a drawback that they're essentially
> > > > > named pipes, so no multiplexing, but one per suspend influencing C
> > > > > process shouldn't be a huge burden. 
> > > > 
> > > > It wouldn't need to convert the whole Frameworks layer into C, just
> > > > enough to manage the suspend state.
> > > > 
> > > > Anyway, I think there's been enough arguments against even the concept
> > > > of opportunistic/auto-suspend, and I for one will object with a NAK if
> > > > Rafael send this to Linus.
> > > 
> > > It was submitted already. I tried to followup with NAK, but can't
> > > currently see it in the archive.
> 
> You mean this one:
> 
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/linux-pm/2010-May/025689.html
> 
> ?
> 
> > It was apparently hidden on some funky list.
> 
> Sending a PM pull request to the PM list doesn't really strike me as the
> height of obfuscation.  Plus almost everyone who objected was on the cc
> list.
> 
> >  Hiding pull requests is bad enough, but hiding pull requests for
> > contended features is just plain wrong.
> 
> I don't think it's a conspiracy ... just standard operating procedure
> for this subsystem.  I do think cc'ing lkml is good practise (having
> been yelled at for not doing that in the past) but it's certainly not
> universal practise.

At least it would be good style for a topic which is

   1) contended like this one

   2) pushing an intrusive feature last minute which has been merged
      into the pm tree barely two days ago.

Darn, _we_ have to deal with that forever as it sets a crappy user
space ABI in stone.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/