On Wednesday 26 May 2010, 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. > > It was apparently hidden on some funky list. Hiding pull requests is bad > enough, but hiding pull requests for contended features is just plain > wrong. It was not intentionally hidden. I think my mailer did that wrong because the CC list was too long or something like this. I surely intended to send it to the LKML, so sorry for the inconvenience. Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
