[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1317068164.1763.39.camel@twins>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 22:16:04 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, arve@...roid.com,
markgross@...gnar.org, Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
amit.kucheria@...aro.org, farrowg@...ibm.com,
"Dmitry Fink (Palm GBU)" <Dmitry.Fink@...m.com>,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, khilman@...com,
Magnus Damm <damm@...nsource.se>, mjg@...hat.com,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] [RFC] Proposal for optimistic suspend idea.
On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 12:13 -0700, John Stultz wrote:
>
> For now, I'd just be interested in what folks think about the concept with
> regards to the wakelock discussions. Where it might not be sufficient? Or
> what other disadvantages might it have? Are there any varients to this
> idea that would be better?
I would like to know why people still think wakelocks are remotely sane?
>From where I'm sitting they're utter crap.. _WHY_ do you need to suspend
anything? What's wrong with regular idle?
So no, you've got a massive major NAK for anything touching the
scheduler for this utter braindamage.
--
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