Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, take three

[Felipe Contreras]

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Ted Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> 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:
>> Â1) no user-space beside Android has expresses interest in implementing
>> Â2) is dubious whether the benefits are worth the pain for non-Android
>> user-space
>> Â3) will become less and less attractive as dynamic PM gets closer to
>> the sweet-spot, and then surpass it
>> Â4) 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! ÂGoogle 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/