On Thursday 12 February 2009, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> >> It allows wakelocks with timeouts [--snip--] > > Well, you put quite a lot of effort into making this nicely debuggable and so > > on, but I think you should have submitted the minimal core functionality first > > to see if people were comfortable with it. > > The code I submitted is usable and tested. Unfortunately, that doesn't help it a lot. There's a lot of usable and tested code out of the kernel. In general, kernel code is mergeable if people agree with it, which is not the case with your patches. > Without wakelocks we cannot use suspend, and without wakelock timeouts > we cannot pass events to components that do not use wakelocks. This is a very strong statement, as though there had not been any alternative to the wakelocks. I don't really think it's the case. Thanks, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
