lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [May]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 6)
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:48:58AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Matthew Garrett <mjg@redhat.com> [100511 10:25]:
> > On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:24:43AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> >
> > > For the failed suspend path in the kernel, currently the kernel would
> > > unwind back all the drivers because of the failed driver, but that path
> > > should be possible to optimize.
> >
> > If you think it's possible to make this work then feel free to. But at
> > the point where you're adding code to every driver's suspend function to
> > determine whether or not it's got any pending events that userspace
> > hasn't consumed yet, and adding code to every bit of userspace to allow
> > it to indicate whether or not it's busy consuming events or just busy
> > drawing 3D bouncing cattle, I think you've reinvented suspend blocks.
>
> Sorry, I have a working system that idles nicely and stays up on
> batteries for a long time while running. I don't need to implement
> anything like this :)

Right, but your system will only idle nicely if all of your userspace is
well-written. It's not reasonable to expect that all userspace will be
well-written and thus it's necessary to implement a power management
strategy that doesn't require that. Refusing an implementation that
achieves that on the basis that there's hypothetically a better way of
doing it is entirely unreasonable.

--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-05-12 10:11    [W:1.154 / U:0.188 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site