On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 02:31:31PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 06:50:50PM -0700, mark gross wrote: > > > In my sequence above I had the modem driver "magically" knowing to fail > > this suspend attempt. (that "magic" wasn't fully thought out though.) > > If the modem driver knows to "magically" fail a suspend attempt until it > knows that userspace has consumed the event, you have something that > looks awfully like suspend blockers. > > > There *has* to be a better way. > > But nobody has reasonably proposed one and demonstrated that it works. > We've had over a year to do so and failed, and I think it's pretty > unreasonable to ask Google to attempt to rearchitect based on a > hypothetical. > These are not new issues being raised. They've had over a year to address them, and all thats really happened was some sed script changes from wake_lock to suspend_blocker. Nothing is really different here. Rearchitecting out of tree code is as silly thing for you to expect from a community member. sigh, lets stop wasting time and just merge it then. I'm finished with this thread until I do some rearchecting and post something that looks better to me. I'll look for this stuff in 2.6.34 or 35. --mgross ps It think the name suspend blocker is worse than wake-lock. I'd change it back. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
