[lkml]   [2010]   [May]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)
    On Thu, 27 May 2010, Felipe Balbi wrote:

    > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 05:06:23PM +0200, ext Alan Stern wrote:
    > >If people don't mind, here is a greatly simplified summary of the
    > >comments and objections I have seen so far on this thread:
    > >
    > > The in-kernel suspend blocker implementation is okay, even
    > > beneficial.
    > I disagree here. I believe expressing that as QoS is much better. Let
    > the kernel decide which power state is better as long as I can say I
    > need 100us IRQ latency or 100ms wakeup latency.

    Does this mean you believe "echo mem >/sys/power/state" is bad and
    should be removed? Or "echo disk >/sys/power/state"? They pay no
    attention to latencies or other requirements.

    Alan Stern

     \ /
      Last update: 2010-05-27 19:07    [W:0.020 / U:112.164 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site