[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100507214855.GA30190@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 22:48:55 +0100
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>
To: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
Cc: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...o99.com>,
Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
mark gross <mgross@...ux.intel.com>, markgross@...gnar.org,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Linux-pm mailing list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 1/8] PM: Add suspend block api.
On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 02:42:11PM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com> [100507 14:34]:
> > How do you know to wake the process up in response to the keypress?
>
> Does it matter for processes that are not "certified"? Maybe you
> could assume that you can keep it stopped until the screen is on
> again, or some other policy.
Yes, it matters. You don't necessarily know whether to turn the screen
on until the app has had an opportunity to process the event. This is
exactly the kind of use case that suspend blocks are intended to allow,
so alternatives that don't permit that kind of use case aren't really
adequate alternatives.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists