[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, Alan Stern wrote:

> On Thu, 27 May 2010, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Crap. Stop beating on those lost wakeup events. If we lose them then
> > the drivers are broken and do not handle the switch over correctly. Or
> > the suspend mechanism is broken as it does not evaluate the system
> > state correctly. Blockers are just papering over that w/o tackling the
> > real problem.
> That's the point -- suspend does not evaluate the system state
> correctly because it doesn't have the necessary information. Suspend
> blockers are a way of providing it that information. They don't paper
> over the problem; they solve it.

Nonsense. The system state is well defined when a event is pending and
we just have to say good bye to the idea that forced suspend is a good
solution. It's not as it does not guarantee the event processing in
badly written apps and it does move the power consumption to a later
point in time for those apps which acquire/drop the blockers.



 \ /
  Last update: 2010-05-27 20:13    [W:0.475 / U:0.108 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site