[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1006071748270.2933@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 17:49:44 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@...il.com>, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
tytso@....edu, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Arve Hj�nev� <arve@...roid.com>,
Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@...ia.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Linux OMAP Mailing List <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] suspend blockers & Android integrationy
Alan,
On Mon, 7 Jun 2010, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2010, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > #2 is a tad harder, as it requires to fix the trusted apps not to fire
> > timers when there is nothing to do.
>
> No; all you have to do is handle the trusted apps as though they were
> untrusted -- just as in the original wakelock approach.
>
> > Though you can solve it with cgroups as well. The unfreeze problem
> > for real wakeups can be solved as mhelsley pointed out somewhere
> > else in this thread.
> >
> > But that depends on user space changes ....
>
> If you handle all the apps uniformly, very few userspace changes are
> needed.
Oh, I see. I misunderstood you. -ENOTENOUGHSLEEP
Thanks,
Thomas
--
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