On Thu, 27 May 2010, Alan Stern wrote: > On Thu, 27 May 2010, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > Crap. Stop beating on those lost wakeup events. If we lose them then > > the drivers are broken and do not handle the switch over correctly. Or > > the suspend mechanism is broken as it does not evaluate the system > > state correctly. Blockers are just papering over that w/o tackling the > > real problem. > > That's the point -- suspend does not evaluate the system state > correctly because it doesn't have the necessary information. Suspend > blockers are a way of providing it that information. They don't paper > over the problem; they solve it. Nonsense. The system state is well defined when a event is pending and we just have to say good bye to the idea that forced suspend is a good solution. It's not as it does not guarantee the event processing in badly written apps and it does move the power consumption to a later point in time for those apps which acquire/drop the blockers. Thanks, tglx -- 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
