[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1274886947.1674.1757.camel@laptop>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 17:15:47 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul@...p1.linux-foundation.org, felipe.balbi@...ia.com,
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, 2010-05-26 at 17:11 +0200, Florian Mickler wrote:
> I'm not saying that your argument is not valid. But why don't you look
> at suspend blockers as a contract between userspace and kernelspace? An
> Opt-In to the current guarantees the kernel provides in the non-suspend
> case.
That's backwards.
--
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