[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1110141156040.2036-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:00:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
mark gross <markgross@...gnar.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/2] PM / Sleep: Extended control of suspend/hibernate
interfaces
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011, NeilBrown wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
>
> What do you mean by "too complicated to use in practice"? What is you
> measure for complexity?
> Using suspend in a race-free way is certainly less complex than - for
> example - configuring bluetooth.
> And in what way is it "inadequate for other reasons"? What reasons?
>
>
> The only sane way to handle suspend is for any (suitably privileged) process
> to be able to request that suspend doesn't happen, and then for one process
> to initiate suspend when no-one is blocking it.
One of the things Rafael didn't mention is that sometimes a kernel
driver needs to prevent the system from suspending. This happens when
recharging over a USB connection.
There's no simple way for such a driver to communicate with a power
daemon. The driver has to use something like the wakeup mechanism --
but currently that mechanism is optional.
Alan Stern
--
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