* Brian Swetland <swetland@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 12:57 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > * Brian Swetland <swetland@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> We started here because it's possibly the only api level change we have > >> -- almost everything else is driver or subarch type work or controversial > >> but entirely self-contained (like the binder, which I would be shocked to > >> see ever hit mainline). [...] > > > > So why arent those bits mainline? It's a 1000 times easier to get drivers > > and small improvements and non-ABI changes upstream. > > > > After basically two years of growing your fork (and some attempts to get > > your drivers into drivers/staging/ - from where they have meanwhile > > dropped out again) you re-started with the worst possible thing to merge: > > a big and difficult kernel feature affecting many subsystems. Why? > > Because a large number of our drivers depend on it. So why not put in some stub or so? Auto-suspend/suspend-blockers is a feature, and drivers ought to be able to work without a feature as well. Keep the suspend-blocker changes in the android tree initially, and get the main body of changes out first, and establish a flow of timely changes. That reduces your maintenance burden and increases trust for future changes - a win-win situation. In any case, this is not to suggest that the suspend-blocker bits are 'impossible' to merge. I just say that if you start with your most difficult feature you should not be surprised to be on the receiving end of a 1000+ mails flamewar on lkml ;-) > > I've been tracking android-common and android-msm for a while and i have > > to say that it shows a very lackluster attitude towards upstream: > > > > ??- The latest branches i can see are v2.6.32 based today. We are in the > > ?? v2.6.35 stabilization cycle and are developing v2.6.36. I.e. your > > upstream ?? base is about a year too old. > > We have some branch naming confusion and work going on in > experimental, but our active work right now is against 2.6.34 and > 2.6.35-rc. [...] That's nice! > [...] The tegra2 work has been very aggressively following mainline > (rebasing against 2.6.34rc as they were getting underway), and we've been > sending those patches out for review, in hopes of getting that tree off on a > better foot. Ah, googling for 'tegra2' gave me the magic URI: git remote add android-tegra2 git://android.git.kernel.org/kernel/tegra.git I generally roam various trees for scheduler patches when i can, seeing what problems people are facing and trying to prevent more painful forks from developing. You have these changes there currently: d82647e: sched: make task dump print all 15 chars of proc comm 5e3e0f1: sched: Enable might_sleep before initializing drivers. Please submit 5e3e0f1. We can probably do that one even simpler, by turning __might_sleep_init_called into the only flag that __might_sleep() checks - i.e. not checking system_state at all. Also, please submit d82647e, it makes sense too. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
