[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 18:09:56 +0100
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@...il.com>
Cc: Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, david@...g.hm,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
kevin granade <kevin.granade@...il.com>,
Arve Hj?nnev?g <arve@...roid.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
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,
peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread
On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 08:08:33PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 7:08 PM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org> wrote:
> > It's clearly possible for a pathological Android application to destroy
> > the power management policy. But to do that, the author would have to
> > explicitly take a wakelock. That's difficult to do by accident.
>
> The writer can take a wakelock the whole time the application is
> running (isn't that the typical case?), because perhaps the author
> realizes that way the application works correctly, or he copy-pasted
> it from somewhere else.
No, that's not the typical case.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
--
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