On Wed, 26 May 2010 17:45:00 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 17:40 +0200, Florian Mickler wrote: > > On Wed, 26 May 2010 17:15:47 +0200 > > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 17:11 +0200, Florian Mickler wrote: > > > > I'm not saying that your argument is not valid. But why don't you look > > > > at suspend blockers as a contract between userspace and kernelspace? An > > > > Opt-In to the current guarantees the kernel provides in the non-suspend > > > > case. > > > > > > That's backwards. > > > > I think that's the point of it. > > Apparently, and you're not accepting that we're telling you we think its > a singularly bad idea. Alan seems to have the skill to clearly explain > why, I suggest you re-read his emails again. I'm sorry if I offend you. I indeed read Alan's emails. It's just they have more content than yours. So it takes longer. Cheers, Flo -- 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
