[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100526143323.7c6f8705@schatten.dmk.lab>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 14:33:23 +0200
From: Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>
To: felipe.balbi@...ia.com
Cc: Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Paul@...p1.linux-foundation.org" <Paul@...p1.linux-foundation.org>,
Linux OMAP Mailing List <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)
On Wed, 26 May 2010 15:29:32 +0300
Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@...ia.com> wrote:
> hi,
>
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 02:24:30PM +0200, ext Florian Mickler wrote:
> >And if you have two kernels, one with which your device is dead after 1
> >hour and one with which your device is dead after 10 hours. Which would
> >you prefer? I mean really... this is ridiculous.
>
> What I find ridiculous is the assumption that kernel should provide good
> power management even for badly written applications. They should work,
> of course, but there's no assumption that the kernel should cope with
> those applications and provide good battery usage on those cases.
>
> You can install and run anything on the device, and they will work as
> they should (they will be scheduled and will be processed) but you can't
> expect the kernel to prevent that application from waking up the CPU
> every 10 ms simply because someone didn't think straight while writting
> the app.
>
But then someone at the user side has to know what he is doing.
I fear, if you target mass market without central distribution
channels, you can not assume that much.
Cheers,
Flo
--
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