On Wed, 26 May 2010, Florian Mickler wrote: > I don't think that the in-kernel suspend block is a bad idea. > > You could probably use the suspend-blockers unconditionally in the > suspend framework to indicate if a suspend is possible or not. That's not how it works. Drivers aren't supposed to abort unconditional suspend -- not without a really good reason (for example, the device received a wakeup event before it was fully suspended). In short, suspends should be considered to be _always_ possible. > Regardless of opportunistic suspend or not. This way, you don't have to > try-and-fail on a suspend request and thus making suspending > potentially more robust or allowing for a "suspend as soon as > possible" semantic (which is probably a good idea, if you have to grab > your laptop in a hurry to get away). That's different. Suspend blockers could block (not abort!) regular suspends, just as they do opportunistic suspends. But why should they? I mean, if userspace wants to initiate a suspend that is capable of being blocked by a kernel suspend blocker, then all it has to do is initiate an opportunistic suspend instead of a normal suspend. Alan Stern -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
