Hi! > > > This is completely wrong, IMO. > > > > > > Removing an interface that has existed forever just because it happens to > > > be incompatible with your new shiny feature is not acceptable to me. > > > > Agreed. AFAICS this patch can be just dropped, or maybe kept specially > > for android if those few bytes matter to them. > > Just to make things crystal clear, in fact I don't like any patches in this > series. > > The wakelocks seem to be overdesigned to me and the "early suspend" thing Well, it is true that wakelocks could be single atomic_t ... but they would make them undebuggable. Ok, wakelock interface sucks. But I believe something like that is neccessary. (In fact, I invented something similar for sleepy linux patches). Early suspend would be better done by runtime suspend, agreed. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
