On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:32:29AM -0400, Phillip Susi wrote: > On 6/16/2011 10:15 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > >Yes. How would the kernel know that you don't want WoL in that case? > > That was my original point; the kernel architecture seems lacking > since it does not consider what S state you are talking about wrt > wakeup capability and policy. I can see the argument that policy > should be dynamically changed in user space, but it seems that the > kernel really needs to track the capability as it relates to S state > so you don't try to enable wakeup in states where it is not > possible. But you're complaining about the case where wakeup is enabled in a case where it *is* possible. Userspace needs to take care of that. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
