Re: [RFD] Automatic suspend

[Arve Hjønnevåg]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 5:51 AM, Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> >> > Not ignoring, but considering them as insufficient.  And since they've already
>> >> > been considered as insufficient, there's no point repeating them over and over
>> >> > again.  That doesn't make them any better.
>> >>
>> >> The problem is that what you consider insufficient is what allows us
>> >> to ship a product.
>> >
>> > This doesn't matter a whit, because the mainline kernel is not just your
>> > product.
>>
>> Unless you are saying that changes in the mainline kernel does not
>> need be usable in practice, then it does matter. If we remove the
>> feature that allows us to interact with existing code, it will take
>> much longer before it is usable by anyone.
>
> Well, taking longer before "being usable" is good tradeoff if it means
> "we get cleaner/actually correct system in mainline sooner".

I think this could go either way. If the system is usable, it may get
more use from developers that know how to improve a specific subsystem
to not use timeouts. Or, it may be considered good enough, and nobody
bothers coming up with a correct solution. I think the latter is what
you are worried will happen.

>
>> >> I don't think I am the only one who want this code in the mainline
>> >> kernel. Many people want to use the android platform, and support in
>> >> the mainline kernel would be beneficial to some of them. I made many
>> >> requested changes to my code that provides no benefit to us, but I
>> >> have not made any changes that breaks our own use.
>> >
>> > OK, please resubmit the patches, then.
>>
>> I submitted them three weeks ago. I'll submit a new set after I rename
>> the api (presumably to suspend_block(er)) but I would like more
>> agreement on the timeout issue first.
>
> I do believe that everyone (including you :-) agrees that timeouts are
> ugly hack. So just reorder the series so they come at the end.

No, I think many uses of timeouts are a ugly hack, not all, but OK I
will try to move timeout support to a separate patch.

-- 
Arve Hjønnevåg
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/