Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752442Ab0FAFYc (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Jun 2010 01:24:32 -0400 Received: from mail-pv0-f174.google.com ([74.125.83.174]:34896 "EHLO mail-pv0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751926Ab0FAFYb convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Jun 2010 01:24:31 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20100601050914.GG31155@gvim.org> References: <20100530200409.GA21632@gvim.org> <20100531095753.4c174f2d@notabene.brown> <20100531221035.GB31155@gvim.org> <201006010045.21382.rjw@sisk.pl> <20100601050914.GG31155@gvim.org> Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 22:24:30 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [RFC] lp_events: an lternitive to suspend blocker user mode and kernel API From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arve_Hj=F8nnev=E5g?= To: markgross@thegnar.org Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , mark.gross@intel.com, Neil Brown , Brian Swetland , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Arve@smtp1.linux-foundation.org, Thomas Gleixner , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, Alan Cox Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1715 Lines: 39 On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 10:09 PM, mark gross <640e9920@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 12:45:21AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Tuesday 01 June 2010, mark gross wrote: >> > On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 09:57:53AM +1000, Neil Brown wrote: >> ... >> > > So I would suggest modifying your proposal to simply create a new 'input' >> > > device. ?Any driver that supports wake-from-suspend queues an event to that >> > > device when a wakeup event occurs. ?If the device is open and has any queued >> > > events, then a suspend request such as 'echo mem > /sys/power/state' completes >> > > without going into full suspend. >> > >> > /me likes. >> > >> > > Then you just need to convince us that this mechanism can be used without any >> > > race problems. ?If it can, then it would certainly be a simple and >> > > unobtrusive approach. >> > >> > Lets find out. >> >> Simple question: how is that better than the Alan Stern's proposed approach? >> > I just saw Alan Stern's proposal, and have gotten some input form some > others. ?I can't say my patch represents a better Idea than what Alan > proposed. ?However; what Alan (and Thomas) are talking about is > effectively the same as the kenrel mode wakelock/suspend blocker thing, > and although it reuses existing infrastructure, it doesn't solve the > problem of needing overlapping blocking sections of code from ISR to > user mode. > I don't think your solution solves this either. -- Arve Hj?nnev?g -- 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/