On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 11:33 PM, Neil Brown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> The current suspend-blocker proposal already involves userspace >> changes (it's different than our existing wakelock interface), and >> we're certainly not opposed to any/all userspace changes on principle, >> but on the other hand we're not interested in significant reworks of >> userspace unless they actually improve the situation somehow. I think >> bottlenecking events through a central daemon would represent a step >> backwards. > > I guess it becomes an question of economics for you then. Does the cost of > whatever user-space changes are required exceed the value of using an upstream > kernel? Both the cost and the value would be very hard to estimate in > advance. I don't envy you the decision... Well, at this point we've invested more engineering hours in the various rewrites of this (single) patchset and discussion around it than we have spent on rebasing our trees on roughly every other mainline release since 2.6.16 or so, across five years of Android development. We think there's some good value to be had (all the usual reasons) by heading upstream, so we're still discussing these patches and exploring alternatives, but yes, from one way of looking at it, it'd certainly be cheaper to just keep maintaining our own trees. Brian _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
