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

[Bernd Petrovitsch]

On Sam, 2010-08-14 at 09:50 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Thu 2010-08-12 08:52:49, 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)
> > 
> > So, Felipe,
> > 
> > Do you believe you speak for all of LKML?
[...]
> And yes, for the record Felipe speaks for me pretty well.

Not that IÂm as "valuable" as the others quoted above: I have the same
impression.

> Normal path of merging stuff to the kernel is
> 
> "Google develops it, then modifies it to address the review comments,
> then it is merged, then it is deployed".
> 
> Unfortunately what Google did here is:
> 
> "Google develops it behind the closed door, then deploys it. When
> asked for changes, Google expects someone else to create system
> compatible with their existing solution, or else their patches being
> merged."

That basically sums it up as far as I see.

	Bernd
-- 
Bernd Petrovitsch                  Email : bernd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
                     LUGA : http://www.luga.at

--
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/