Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757632Ab0FEUCB (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Jun 2010 16:02:01 -0400 Received: from ist.d-labs.de ([213.239.218.44]:42368 "EHLO mx01.d-labs.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752523Ab0FEUB7 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Jun 2010 16:01:59 -0400 Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 22:01:43 +0200 From: Florian Mickler To: Felipe Contreras Cc: Arve =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Hj=F8nnev=E5g?= , Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Matthew Garrett , Alan Stern , Paul@smtp1.linux-foundation.org, LKML , felipe.balbi@nokia.com, Linux OMAP Mailing List , Linux PM , Alan Cox Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8) Message-ID: <20100605220143.08774900@schatten.dmk.lab> In-Reply-To: References: <201005302202.39511.rjw@sisk.pl> <201005312347.24251.rjw@sisk.pl> <1275471561.27810.30865.camel@twins> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.5 (GTK+ 2.18.9; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1787 Lines: 49 On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:44:24 +0300 Felipe Contreras wrote: > 2010/6/2 Arve Hj?nnev?g : > > 2010/6/2 Peter Zijlstra : > >> (and please don't mention @#$@ up x86 ACPI again, Intel knows, they're > >> fixing it, get over it already). > >> > > > > I don't think it is realistic to drop support for all existing hardware. > > We are talking about mainline here, there's no support for suspend > blockers, so nothing is dropped. > > In the mind of everybody, suspend blockers is for opportunistic > suspend, which only makes sense on sensible hw (not current x86). So > in the mind of everybody, x86 should be out of scope for the analysis > of suspend blockers. > > Are you seriously suggesting that one of the strong arguments in favor > of suspend blockers is x86 usage (nobody agrees)? If not, then drop > it. I think they have an advantage over the 30-minute-screensaver-then-suspend that current desktops do. Because you can define what keeps the system up. I.e. the screensaver/powermanager is not limited to keyboard- and mouse-inactivity. > If I enable suspend blockers on my laptop, I have to modify my > user-space. Otherwise my system will behave horribly. > In the simplest case you have a shell script which takes a suspend blocker and reads from stdinput. When you write "mem" to it, it releases the suspend blocker and acquires it back again. Voila, forced suspend reimplemented on top of opportunistic suspend. That wasn't hard, was it? Cheers, Flo -- 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/