Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932636Ab0FEUGH (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Jun 2010 16:06:07 -0400 Received: from mail-bw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:55716 "EHLO mail-bw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756896Ab0FEUGF (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Jun 2010 16:06:05 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=YJ2px+Z4y/0Lg98a4ayC61tGCi36e5zVETsFV+kDIeM8A78BUeIkyO8kUJM3jHYr+m 39Z/KvBYFz1BuCDbcE1VXQ8xAvGp8KYkDMJ7mQkgWVNA6FbP0KvNFbYmwtBfTs8x1Hvp Smh4POYLqbX64qtUUcisYN9V5U1aHpfWirzL0= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20100605215604.68efc4e5@schatten.dmk.lab> References: <201005302202.39511.rjw@sisk.pl> <201005312347.24251.rjw@sisk.pl> <1275471561.27810.30865.camel@twins> <1275474088.27810.31000.camel@twins> <20100602221309.6da754e7@schatten.dmk.lab> <1275550802.27810.34863.camel@twins> <20100603161205.73a2b56d@schatten.dmk.lab> <1275578881.27810.35995.camel@twins> <20100605215604.68efc4e5@schatten.dmk.lab> Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 23:06:03 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8) From: Felipe Contreras To: Florian Mickler Cc: Peter Zijlstra , =?UTF-8?B?QXJ2ZSBIasO4bm5ldsOlZw==?= , 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1981 Lines: 44 On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 10:56 PM, Florian Mickler wrote: > On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:30:40 +0300 > Felipe Contreras wrote: >> I don't think the suspend blockers solve much. A bad application will >> behave bad on any system. Suppose somebody decides to port Firefox to >> Android, and forgets to listen to the screen off event (bad on Android >> or Maemo), however, notices the application behaves very badly, so by >> googling finds these suspend blockers, and enables them all the time >> the application runs. >> >> When the user install the application, will be greeted by a warning >> "This application might break PM, do you want to enable suspend >> blockers?" (or whatever), as any typical user would do, will press Yes >> (whatever). >> >> We end up in exactly the same situation. >> > No. The application will show up in the suspend blocker stats and the > user will remember: "Oh, yes. There was a warning about that. Well I > think I'm going to file a bug there." How would such stats be calculated? I presume at regular intervals you check which applications are holding suspend blockers and increase a counter. How would you do that with the dynamic PM approach? At regular intervals you check for which applications are running (not idle). > The only difference is, that with suspend blockers, he can than > dismiss the applications permission to block suspend and will not miss > his job interview the next day because his phones battery run > out. And also he can use the application to a certain extent. So the difference is between removing the app, and making it run crappy. I don't think that's a strong argument in favor of suspend blockers. -- Felipe Contreras -- 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/