Re: [PATCH 1/8] PM: Opportunistic suspend support.

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

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
--
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/