Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 10 Aug 2010 19:13:20 +0100 | From | Matthew Garrett <> | Subject | Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, take three |
| |
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:07:20AM -0700, david@lang.hm wrote:
> If the primary difference between sleep and suspend is not scheduling > processes, instead of messing with oppurtinistic suspend/suspend > blockers/wakelocks/etc, why not just 'temporarily' change the timer fuzz > value to a very large value (say an hour). That would still let things > like openoffice saves ahve a fair chance to trigger before the battery > died completely, but would wake the system so infrequently that it will > be effectivly the same as a full suspend.
Because it only affects processes that sleep. It's a question of how much pathology you want to be able to tolerate.
-- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org
| |