[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100801161212.23a5d043@infradead.org>
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 16:12:12 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
arve@...roid.com, mjg59@...f.ucam.org, pavel@....cz,
florian@...kler.org, stern@...land.harvard.edu,
swetland@...gle.com, peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 01:02:24 +0200
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
>
> Generally speaking, you can divide applications into the ones that
> will be allowed to influence ths system's behavior with respect to
> power management and the others that won't be allowed to do it. The
> latter may be forcibly "frozen" (this way or another) when the
> "trused" ones collectively decide it's a good idea to enter a deeper
> "energy saving" state. However, it is not a given that specific
> applications will always be in the same group. They may be "trusted"
> on some systems and they may not be "trusted" on some other system,
> depending on the configuration etc. That even may change over time
> on the same system.
>
it might even be a sliding scale; the voting rights don't have to be
"0" and "1", but could also be "0.2" and such....
--
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