[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201005182314.08761.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 23:14:08 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>
Cc: Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 7)
On Tuesday 18 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> 2010/5/18 Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl>:
> > On Tuesday 18 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> >> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> >> > On Monday 17 May 2010, Brian Swetland wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> >> >> > On Monday 17 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> >> >> >>
...
>
> > Now, to make it more "user-friendly", we can simply use
> > queue_delayed_work() with a reasonable delay instead of queue_work() to queue
> > the suspend work (the delay may be configurable via sysfs).
> >
>
> I can add a delay (and the timeout support code does add a delay as an
> optimization) to the unknown wakeup case, but this does not fix the
> problem of a user turning on opportunistic suspend with a user space
> framework that does not use suspend blockers. If the kernel uses
> suspend blockers to make sure the wakeup event makes it to user space,
> but user space does not block suspend, then the system will suspend
> before the event is processed.
But the user can still manually write to /sys/power/state. :-)
Rafael
--
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