[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100814131845.58544209@notabene>
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 13:18:45 +1000
From: Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@...il.com>,
"Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
david@...g.hm, linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mjg59@...f.ucam.org, pavel@....cz,
florian@...kler.org, 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 Fri, 13 Aug 2010 17:07:02 +0200
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> >
> > There is no absolute need to start the suspend process from within the
> > kernel, but it makes the user space code much simpler for what we
> > need.
>
> I'm entirely aware of that. Still, I think user space is the right place to
> initiate system suspend.
>
For what it's worth - I completely agree.
Clearly there is no a lot of unanimity on this, and so lots of room to
experiment with different approaches. It's best if we leave as much as
possible of that experimentation in user-space - just have the kernel do what
cannot be done elsewhere.
NeilBrown
--
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