Wakelocks and the embedded problem [LWN.net]

Wakelocks and the embedded problem

Posted Feb 12, 2009 9:04 UTC (Thu) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183)
In reply to: Wakelocks and the embedded problem by jamesh
Parent article: Wakelocks and the embedded problem

Actually I was thinking that the embedded developers would not be on the list at all, but CCed when appropriate. And if handled delicately, they might even welcome a limited co-ordination with competitors on kernel interfaces - those are likely not to be the most valuable "IP" which they wish to keep to their breast for all times. If the kernel developers thought that the resulting contributions were likely to be of sufficient value (to themselves or their employers :) ) they could even play intermediaries without actually dropping names. This "if" is of course the hinging point for everything I have posted up until now.

(Log in to post comments)

Wakelocks and the embedded problem

Posted Feb 12, 2009 9:53 UTC (Thu) by johill (subscriber, #25196) [Link]

You're also assuming that no kernel developer (for lack of more specification) are competition, something which cannot possibly be true. If you think this through, the list might as well be public, and then you might as well use linux-kernel or a more appropriate subsystem list.