[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100527175920.GE3543@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 18:59:20 +0100
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>,
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 Thu, May 27, 2010 at 07:56:21PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 18:52 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
> > If that's what you're aiming for then you don't need to block
> > applications on hardware access because they should all already have
> > idled themselves.
>
> Correct, a well behaved app would have. I thought we all agreed that
> well behaved apps weren't the problem?
Ok. So the existing badly-behaved application ignores your request and
then gets blocked. And now it no longer responds to wakeup events. So
you penalise well-behaved applications without providing any benefits to
badly-behaved ones.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
--
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