Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760762Ab0HLSV6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:21:58 -0400 Received: from thunk.org ([69.25.196.29]:58716 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760752Ab0HLSV4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:21:56 -0400 Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:21:28 -0400 From: "Ted Ts'o" To: Felipe Contreras Cc: Alan Stern , paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Alan Cox , david@lang.hm, Brian Swetland , 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, peterz@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de, menage@google.com, david-b@pacbell.net, James.Bottomley@suse.de, arjan@infradead.org, swmike@swm.pp.se, galibert@pobox.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com Subject: Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, take three Message-ID: <20100812182128.GC2763@thunk.org> Mail-Followup-To: Ted Ts'o , Felipe Contreras , Alan Stern , paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Alan Cox , david@lang.hm, Brian Swetland , 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, peterz@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de, menage@google.com, david-b@pacbell.net, James.Bottomley@suse.de, arjan@infradead.org, swmike@swm.pp.se, galibert@pobox.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com References: <20100812125248.GA2763@thunk.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@thunk.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on thunker.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1544 Lines: 32 On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 07:46:03PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote: > All the Android community had to do is push the drivers *without* > suspend blockers, then the Android kernel wouldn't be so different and > thus wouldn't be considered a fork. AFAIU the kernel side wakelocks > are already in the kernel, so there's no excuse not to merge the > drivers. What's there is not good enough, because it's missing the statistics and reporting so that badly behaved kernel and userspace drivers that take wakelocks can be found. I have a similar problem with the whole pm_qos subsystem, as I've said earlier. If some badly behaved application claims to want 0us wireless latency, and keeps the radio on all the time, there is no way for me to find out which is the badly behaved application --- even though I'm the owner of the laptop, and at the end of the day *I* should be able to say, no, battery lifetime is more important than what the application might think is its "minimum wireless latency". Not only can I not override the application, I can't even find out which application is at fault! ***FAIL*** In some ways, this is exactly the same problem as the "which badly Maemo application is causing my causing my N770 to have its battery laptop drop in half?". - Ted -- 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/