Hi!

quoted text
> I agree that the runtime scenario is a far more appealing one from an 
> aesthetic standpoint, but so far we don't have a very compelling 
> argument for dealing with the starting and stopping of userspace. The 
> use-cases that Google have provided are valid and they have an 
> implementation that addresses them, and while we're unable to provide an 
> alternative that provides the same level of functionality I think we're 
> in a poor position to prevent this from going in.

Uhuh?

"We have this ugly code here, but it works and we don't have better
one, so lets merge it"?

I don't really like this line of reasoning. I would not want to judge
wakelocks here, but... "it works, merge it" should not be used as
argument.

And btw I do have wakelock-less implementation of autosleep, that only
sleeped the machine when nothing was ready to run. It was called
"sleepy linux". Should I dig it out?

Major difference was that it only sleeped the machine when it was
absolutely certain machine is idle and no timers are close to firing
-- needing elimination or at least markup of all short timers. It
erred on side of not sleeping the machine when it would break
something.

Still I believe it is better design than wakelocks -- that need
markup/fixes to all places where machine must not sleep -- effectively
sleeping the machine too often than fixing stuff with wakelocks all
over kernel and userspace...
								Pavel

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/