[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1274982447.27810.5684.camel@twins>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 19:47:27 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>, felipe.balbi@...ia.com,
Linux OMAP Mailing List <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)
On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 18:40 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 07:34:40PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > we still need to be able to enter suspend while the system isn't idle.
> >
> > _WHY_!?
>
> Because if I'm running a kernel build in a tmpfs and I hit the sleep
> key, I need to go to sleep. Blocking processes on driver access isn't
> sufficient.
But that's a whole different issue. I agree that a forced suspend for
things like that make sense, just not for power managing a running
system. PC style hardware like that doesn't wake up from suspend for
funny things like a keypress either (good thing too).
Anyway all that already works (more or less), so I don't see the
problem.
--
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