On Wed, 26 May 2010, James Bottomley wrote: > On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 19:01 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 18:59 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > 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. > > You mean this one: > > https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/linux-pm/2010-May/025689.html > > ? > > > It was apparently hidden on some funky list. > > Sending a PM pull request to the PM list doesn't really strike me as the > height of obfuscation. Plus almost everyone who objected was on the cc > list. > > > Hiding pull requests is bad enough, but hiding pull requests for > > contended features is just plain wrong. > > I don't think it's a conspiracy ... just standard operating procedure > for this subsystem. I do think cc'ing lkml is good practise (having > been yelled at for not doing that in the past) but it's certainly not > universal practise. At least it would be good style for a topic which is 1) contended like this one 2) pushing an intrusive feature last minute which has been merged into the pm tree barely two days ago. Darn, _we_ have to deal with that forever as it sets a crappy user space ABI in stone. Thanks, tglx _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
