On Wed 2010-05-26 18:28:28, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 11:18 -0500, James Bottomley wrote: > > > Or make the suspend manager a C proglet and provide a JNI interface, > > > or whatever. > > > > It's a fairly large piece of code to try to rewrite in C, so I don't > > think that's feasible on a reasonable timescale. Android does have the > > concept of special sockets that can be used to communicate from less to > > more privileged processes (it has a very segmented runtime model), so > > these might be usable ... they have a drawback that they're essentially > > named pipes, so no multiplexing, but one per suspend influencing C > > process shouldn't be a huge burden. > > It wouldn't need to convert the whole Frameworks layer into C, just > enough to manage the suspend state. > > Anyway, I think there's been enough arguments against even the concept > of opportunistic/auto-suspend, and I for one will object with a NAK if > Rafael send this to Linus. It was submitted already. I tried to followup with NAK, but can't currently see it in the archive. 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
