Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 5 Aug 2010 14:40:57 +0100 | From | Matthew Garrett <> | Subject | Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread |
| |
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 06:02:28PM -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> Which makes the driver and/or network stack changes identical to using > wakelocks, right?
I think we're resigned to the fact that we need to indicate wakeup events in a manner that's pretty equivalent to wakelocks. The only real issue is what the API looks like. Anyone who's still talking about cgroups seems to be trying to solve a different problem.
-- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |