Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Thu, 27 May 2010 19:21:35 +0200 | | From | Florian Mickler <> | | Subject | Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8) |
| |
On Thu, 27 May 2010 18:45:25 +0200 (CEST) Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> The whole notion of treating suspend to RAM any different than a plain > idle C-State is wrong. It's not different at all. You just use a > different mechanism which has longer takedown and wakeup latencies and > requires to shut down stuff and setup extra wakeup sources. > > And there is the whole problem. Switching from normal event delivery > to those special wakeup sources. That needs to be engineered in any > case carefuly and it does not matter whether you add suspend blockers > or not.
Ok, I just don't know the answer: How is it just another idle state if the userspace gets frozen? Doesn't that bork the whole transition and you need a userspace<->kernel synchronisation point to not loose events?
Cheers, Flo
|  |