[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100805023939.GA2987@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 19:39:39 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>
Cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, david@...g.hm,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.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 Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 03:08:33PM -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org> wrote:
[ . . . ]
> > having this conversation? :) It'd be good to have some feedback from
> > Google as to whether this satisfies their functional requirements.
>
> That is "this"? The merged code? If so, no it does not satisfy our
> requirements. The in kernel api, while offering similar functionality
> to the wakelock interface, does not use any handles which makes it
> impossible to get reasonable stats (You don't know which pm_stay_awake
> request pm_relax is reverting). The proposed in user-space interface
> of calling into every process that receives wakeup events before every
> suspend call is also not compatible with existing apps.
I should have asked this earlier... What exactly are the apps'
compatibility constraints? Source-level APIs? Byte-code class-library
invocations? C/C++ dynamic linking? C/C++ static linking (in other
words, syscall)?
Thanx, Paul
--
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