Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753947Ab0HHMkc (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Aug 2010 08:40:32 -0400 Received: from mail-iw0-f174.google.com ([209.85.214.174]:51272 "EHLO mail-iw0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753612Ab0HHMk3 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Aug 2010 08:40:29 -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:content-transfer-encoding; b=he8R0KQgEHDFAtaz1vd4PjoTe9LOEDroiP/poA5W9Y6BCWUsqmCPrAliFspnqI+4tn ujoE7wmr/Lx4bE4oqxhtoJC5Iwqa19uoHusqqV1M3S1NYDVggpEzlWXKG67QiiSvztjZ bI5CgyHcwkSpU4wo4HtEUM9bvcJNAynaFS+7w= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20100806225453.GA3947@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20100731175841.GA9367@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20100804195704.GA23681@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20100806225453.GA3947@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 15:40:28 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, take three From: Felipe Contreras To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, arve@android.com, mjg59@srcf.ucam.org, pavel@ucw.cz, florian@mickler.org, rjw@sisk.pl, stern@rowland.harvard.edu, swetland@google.com, peterz@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, david@lang.hm, menage@google.com, david-b@pacbell.net, James.Bottomley@suse.de, tytso@mit.edu, arjan@infradead.org, swmike@swm.pp.se, galibert@pobox.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 974 Lines: 26 On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 1:54 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > o       "Ill-behaved application" AKA "untrusted application" AKA >        "crappy application". > o       "PM-driving application" are applications that are permitted >        to acquire suspend blockers on Android. These definitions are wrong. 1) There are trusted applications that misbehave (the user clicks Yes when asked about PM permissions) 2) There are untrusted applications that are power optimized (The user clicks No) The proponents of suspend blockers in user-space have tried to ignore this fact, but the truth is that PM permissions and power optimization are orthogonal to each other. -- 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/