[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100812140903.GB11362@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 15:09:03 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@...il.com>
Cc: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, david@...g.hm,
Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
arve@...roid.com, mjg59@...f.ucam.org, pavel@....cz,
florian@...kler.org, rjw@...k.pl, stern@...land.harvard.edu,
peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de, menage@...gle.com,
david-b@...bell.net, James.Bottomley@...e.de, arjan@...radead.org,
swmike@....pp.se, galibert@...ox.com, dipankar@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, take three
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 02:11:22PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> So far, nobody has refuted these:
> 1) opportunistic suspend needs a good behaved user-space to work properly
> 2) if suspend blockers are enabled in a system, *all* user-space must
> implement them to work correctly
For this note that there's a fairly strong expectation that even in a
phone type environment a sane userspace implementation will involve a
very large portion of userspace just totally ignoring suspend blockers.
This means that while it is true that userspace as a whole must have
support for suspend blockers the changes required are substantially less
invasive than you appear to expecting.
--
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