[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100526174735.2613c1d2@schatten.dmk.lab>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 17:47:35 +0200
From: Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.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, 26 May 2010 17:45:00 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 17:40 +0200, Florian Mickler wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 May 2010 17:15:47 +0200
> > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > I think that's the point of it.
>
> Apparently, and you're not accepting that we're telling you we think its
> a singularly bad idea. Alan seems to have the skill to clearly explain
> why, I suggest you re-read his emails again.
I'm sorry if I offend you. I indeed read Alan's emails. It's just they
have more content than yours. So it takes longer.
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