On Sunday 01 March 2009, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:> On Sat, 2009-02-28 at 16:06 -0800, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:> > I'm not taking a position on the merit of the wakelocks per se nor> whether Rafael is right or wrong here, I haven't looked at the problem> closely enough. I just want to react to this:> > > The basic concept was developed long before android was a public> > project.> > This isn't going to bring you any good will. We don't care what was done> before it was a public project. That has strictly no relevance to how it> should be submitted upstream.> > How long the code has been simmering internally to company X or Y or> even in a public tree doesn't matter. Some times, yes, we do take> something as a whole, when it makes no sense to do otherwise (a driver,> a filesystem, ...). > > But something like what you propose, it seems, could easily be broken> down into a basic concept, on which features are added one after the> other, and in this case, it's the right way to go, simply because it's> easier to argue for the basic concept alone if you don't have to handle> comments froms people who don't agree with aspect A B or C of the other> features involved.> > And if the basic concept doesn't get accepted in the first place, then> the whole point is moot... Exactly. This is what I've been trying to say for some time now. Thanks Ben! Rafael_______________________________________________linux-pm mailing listlinux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
