On Sunday 08 February 2009, Pavel Machek wrote: > 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). Something like this, yes. Perhaps it's a good occasion to discuss that and reach an agreement on how to implement it. Thanks, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
