On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 05:11:00PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, 2011-10-17 at 15:59 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > I'm not saying that it's a problem. I'm saying that your approach > > changes behavioural semantics in a way that may violate application > > expectations just as surely as changing the timer behaviour does. > > There's no free approach. > > I'm not saying its free, I'm saying its a much better approach since it > gets rid of the entire problem instead of papering over the worst of it. It solves it for a specific case, ie animations. Any other timer driven behaviour continues. It really does need to be tied to session idle, not application visibility, and enforcement at the X level does nothing to help that. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
