Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, take three

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Ted Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 07:46:03PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>
>> All the Android community had to do is push the drivers *without*
>> suspend blockers, then the Android kernel wouldn't be so different and
>> thus wouldn't be considered a fork. AFAIU the kernel side wakelocks
>> are already in the kernel, so there's no excuse not to merge the
>> drivers.
>
> What's there is not good enough, because it's missing the statistics
> and reporting so that badly behaved kernel and userspace drivers that
> take wakelocks can be found.

You don't need to have all the code merged in, hell, you only needed
wakelock stubs.

You should take the point of view of the community as a whole, and
forget about Android for a second; the important thing is to bring the
code-bases closer, and that means merging the drivers. For that, you
don't need anything extra.

-- 
Felipe Contreras
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm


[Index of Archives]     [Linux ACPI]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [CPU Freq]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux