Hi! > >> > Not ignoring, but considering them as insufficient. And since they've already > >> > been considered as insufficient, there's no point repeating them over and over > >> > again. That doesn't make them any better. > >> > >> The problem is that what you consider insufficient is what allows us > >> to ship a product. > > > > This doesn't matter a whit, because the mainline kernel is not just your > > product. > > Unless you are saying that changes in the mainline kernel does not > need be usable in practice, then it does matter. If we remove the > feature that allows us to interact with existing code, it will take > much longer before it is usable by anyone. Well, taking longer before "being usable" is good tradeoff if it means "we get cleaner/actually correct system in mainline sooner". > >> I don't think I am the only one who want this code in the mainline > >> kernel. Many people want to use the android platform, and support in > >> the mainline kernel would be beneficial to some of them. I made many > >> requested changes to my code that provides no benefit to us, but I > >> have not made any changes that breaks our own use. > > > > OK, please resubmit the patches, then. > > I submitted them three weeks ago. I'll submit a new set after I rename > the api (presumably to suspend_block(er)) but I would like more > agreement on the timeout issue first. I do believe that everyone (including you :-) agrees that timeouts are ugly hack. So just reorder the series so they come at the end. 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
