Has anyone android working with andy-tracking?
andy at openmoko.com
Sun Feb 8 09:40:04 CET 2009
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Somebody in the thread at some point said:
| Andy Green wrote:
|> They're not so scary if they properly default to not impacting suspend
|> and resume in the case it's not Android running.
| Hmm, but do we (Linux) really want to have an "Android mode" for
| the kernel ? I very much doubt even Android would want this sort
| of dichotomy.
|> I could imagine it's
|> quite useful to be able to be sure some complex transaction or event is
|> protected against suspend / resume and atomic for it, since otherwise
|> it's kind of like FIQ just blasting in there when it feels like it.
| It certainly is useful for applications to be able to veto suspend
| during critical activities. The question is just whether the kernel
| is the right place to implement mechanisms to keep applications out
| of each other's hair at such a high level. The suspend operation may
| be very low-down but the decisions that lead to it aren't.
| In our (Openmoko) case, we have the framework that can take care of
| such things. I would expect Android to have some means to coordinate
| what its user space does as well.
We don't need to turn this into a "userspace vs kernel" thing, Android
is not our design. But logically, if nobody claims a lock then the
whole system should be invisible. Then we can at least enable it by
default in our kernel for all cases.
Userspace regulation of suspend is fine if all the players are in
userspace. But the Android folks can have these delicate transactions
in kernel world already, then they need this wakelock concept. So it's
not inherently wrongheaded.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the openmoko-kernel