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. It was apparently hidden on some funky list. Hiding pull requests is bad enough, but hiding pull requests for contended features is just plain wrong. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
