[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1005271724430.3239-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 17:26:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
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, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:23:50PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 May 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > A wakeup event is defined as one that wakes the system - if a system
> > > can't be woken by a specific event then it's impossible to lose it,
> > > since it wasn't a wakeup event to begin with.
> >
> > So where is the problem ?
>
> The problem is that, right now, if a wakeup event is received between
> the point where userspace decides to start a suspend and userspace
> actually starts a suspend, that event may not abort the suspend.
The two of you are talking at cross purposes. Thomas is referring to
idle-based suspend and Matthew is talking about forced suspend.
Or at least, that's how it appears to me. No wonder you can't agree on
anything.
Alan Stern
--
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