Re: [PATCH] - race-free suspend. Was: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)

2010-06-03 Thread tytso
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 11:43:06PM -0700, Brian Swetland wrote: I guess it becomes an question of economics for you then.  Does the cost of whatever user-space changes are required exceed the value of using an upstream kernel?  Both the cost and the value would be very hard to estimate in

Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)

2010-05-28 Thread tytso
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 04:32:15PM +0300, Igor Stoppa wrote: What I consider plain wrong i to claim that since there are this many units out, some code should be merged. A company needs to cut corners sometimes when making a product but this should not affect upstream code. Linus will

Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)

2010-05-27 Thread tytso
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 11:55:46PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: This started because the Android people came to a meeting that was put together of various folks to try and sort of the big blockage in getting Android and Linux kernels back towards merging. I am interested right now in finding a

Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 6)

2010-05-13 Thread tytso
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 02:25:56PM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: I agree and I don't understand the problem that people have with the opportunistic suspend feature. It seems to be picking quite a few comments for one. It's picking up a lot of comments because *someone* seems to be trying to