On Thu, 27 May 2010, Florian Mickler wrote:
> On Wed, 26 May 2010 22:03:37 +0200
> Vitaly Wool <vitalyw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 9:56 PM, Florian Mickler <flor...@mickler.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Your approach definitely sounds better than the current solution.
> > > What about mapping suspend blocker functionality later on, when this
> > > interface exists, on to this new approach and deprecating it?
> >
> > What about coming back after some while with the appropriate solution
> > when it's ready instead of stubbornly pushing crap?
> >
> > ~Vitaly
>
> Because quite frankly, for a good part of linux users, suspend blockers
> is already in the kernel. It's just an historical mistake that they are
> not in the linux kernel's hosted on kernel.org.
No, it's not a historical mistake. It's a technical decision _NOT_ to
merge crap. If we would accept every crappy patch which gets shipped
in large quantities as a defacto part of the kernel we would have a
completely unmaintainable mess since years.
> So why don't we do what we always do? Improve existing interfaces step
> by step?
Exactly, that's what we are going to do. We improve and extend
existing interfaces step by step, but not by creating a horrible and
unmaintainable mess in the frist place which we can never get rid of
anymore.
> Top Down approaches fail from time to time. Also it is not clear, that
> that proposed interface works for the use cases. This has to be proven
> by providing an implementation.
Nobody prevents you to sit down and start with a prove of concept
implementation.
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
