On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Brian Swetland <swetland@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 2:25 PM, Felipe Contreras > <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Now, only Android has decided to use suspend blockers, that's a >> *fact*, and I wanted to narrow the discussion to Android in order to >> make it easier to understand that Android doesn't need suspend >> blockers, once we have agreed that, then I'd gladly discuss it's >> merits outside Android. > > On behalf of the Android folks, we don't agree with this. If you're > going to wait until we suddenly change our minds, I think you're going > to be in for a long wait. I'm sure as a team that's the case, but you can't know what's in the mind of everyone at Google (not Android). >> I argued to you that suspend-blockers are not required in Android, and >> suddenly you decide we should agree to disagree without arguing back? >> Well, suit yourself. I still maintain that suspend-blockers is just an >> expensive workaround, and in some cases actually degrades power >> consumption; the right solution is much more sophisticated. > > Once "the right solution" exists and solves our problems, we'll > certainly look into switching over to it. I've yet to see a proposal > in all this arguing that appears to me to be an improvement over what > we have today with suspend blockers. I find the "don't do what you're > doing because someday, somebody will do it better" to be an > uncompelling argument. That was not an argument, it was an opinion. If you want an argument go back to read this one: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1021834 > Given your opinion that Android lacks multitasking (what? really?) This is what I'm talking about when I say multi-tasking, Android certainly doesn't have anything remotely like that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7emvUBpEkbU -- Felipe Contreras _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
