3 ms·

Having a public git tree and rebasing to new versions doesn't make it less of a fork. When I have forked projects to customize them for my own use I make the g

by philips 17y ago

Having a public git tree and rebasing to new versions doesn't make it less of a fork. When I have forked projects to customize them for my own use I make the git tree public and rebase on top of the origin project to get bug fixes. Just as Android is. That doesn't mean upstream will ever take my code or that they should. What are the good reasons for binder and wake locks? I have followed LKML discussions about them and no one has a great argument for them. If you are interested there are a great many thoughtful discussions about them e.g. http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.power-management.general/13016 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.power-management.general... And I haven't seen the statements from Google that they want to merge with the Kernel long term either.

buster 17y ago
"We (Google) definitely want to get back in sync with mainline (as I've mentioned earlier in this or a related thread), and we're planning on snapping up our kernel trees to 2.6.32+ once we get past various deadlines in the near future." yep, LKML is they place they talk about it ;) -> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/905490/focus=907382 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/905490/focus=9073... As for the wakelock: I'm clearly not that deep into kernel development, but the thread looks like there is also no real point against wakelocks and the android developer seems to have points as to why he did what he did. In the end, we will see if their next attempt to kernel inclusion is sane and has good points to it. Thanks for the interesting link, though! I guess i'll read up a bit on that. :)
- buster 17y ago
  Linus from http://torvalds-family.blogspot.com/2010/02/happy-camper.html http://torvalds-family.blogspot.com/2010/02/happy-camper.htm...: I don't worry about out-of-tree development for odd devices too much. I wish we could merge android, but I also accept it likely being a few years away. We had similar out-of-tree issues with the SGI extreme scalability stuff, and it took quite a while before the standard kernel merged all of that.

by philips 17y ago

buster 17y ago

"We (Google) definitely want to get back in sync with mainline (as I've mentioned earlier in this or a related thread), and we're planning on snapping up our kernel trees to 2.6.32+ once we get past various deadlines in the near future." yep, LKML is they place they talk about it ;) -> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/905490/focus=907382 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/905490/focus=9073... As for the wakelock: I'm clearly not that deep into kernel development, but the thread looks like there is also no real point against wakelocks and the android developer seems to have points as to why he did what he did. In the end, we will see if their next attempt to kernel inclusion is sane and has good points to it. Thanks for the interesting link, though! I guess i'll read up a bit on that. :)

buster 17y ago
Linus from http://torvalds-family.blogspot.com/2010/02/happy-camper.html http://torvalds-family.blogspot.com/2010/02/happy-camper.htm...: I don't worry about out-of-tree development for odd devices too much. I wish we could merge android, but I also accept it likely being a few years away. We had similar out-of-tree issues with the SGI extreme scalability stuff, and it took quite a while before the standard kernel merged all of that.