[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1005272006560.3032@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 20:08:53 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
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, 27 May 2010, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 27 May 2010, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> > Crap. Stop beating on those lost wakeup events. If we lose them then
> > the drivers are broken and do not handle the switch over correctly. Or
> > the suspend mechanism is broken as it does not evaluate the system
> > state correctly. Blockers are just papering over that w/o tackling the
> > real problem.
>
> That's the point -- suspend does not evaluate the system state
> correctly because it doesn't have the necessary information. Suspend
> blockers are a way of providing it that information. They don't paper
> over the problem; they solve it.
Nonsense. The system state is well defined when a event is pending and
we just have to say good bye to the idea that forced suspend is a good
solution. It's not as it does not guarantee the event processing in
badly written apps and it does move the power consumption to a later
point in time for those apps which acquire/drop the blockers.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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