User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Wakelocks and the embedded problem

Wakelocks and the embedded problem

Posted Feb 11, 2009 13:01 UTC (Wed) by Kluge (subscriber, #2881)
Parent article: Wakelocks and the embedded problem

'Another fundamental rule is "upstream first": code goes into the mainline before being shipped to
customers.'

I thought that the kernel hackers disliked adding new features unless they were already in use (and
hence proven useful) by someone.


(Log in to post comments)

Wakelocks and the embedded problem

Posted Feb 11, 2009 15:53 UTC (Wed) by knan (subscriber, #3940) [Link]

"In use by some other piece of code" is the usual criteria. I.e. a driver using your added shared infrastructure, a userspace program talking to the interface added, etc.

The actual hardware being more than dreams in a simulator also helps, of course.

Wakelocks and the embedded problem

Posted Feb 14, 2009 0:34 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

I can remember various LWN articles about some proposed feature where kernel developers argued that it needed to be used out of tree and shipped with distributions for a while to prove its worthiness before joining the kernel.org major league. I believe these were major functions, though.


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds