On Thu, 27 May 2010, Florian Mickler wrote:

quoted text
> On Wed, 26 May 2010 22:03:37 +0200
> Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 9:56 PM, Florian Mickler <florian@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.

quoted text
> 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.

quoted text
> 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
--
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/