On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 03:00 -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: > 2010/6/2 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 01:54 -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: > >> No I want you to stop confusing low power idle modes with suspend. > > > > I think it is you who is confused. For power management purposes suspend > > is nothing more but a deep idle state. > > No, idle is transparent, suspend is not. Which is where the problem is, it should be. > Why would I add suspend blockers to the code I want to prevent running? Because what you want might not be what others want. Suppose you're fine with your torrent client/irc client/etc.. to loose their network connection when you're not behind your desktop so you don't add suspend blockers there. Me, I'd be ready to administer physical violence if either of those lost their connections when I wasn't around to keep the screen-saver from kicking in. This leads to having to sprinkle magic dust (and lots of config options) all over userspace. Something that gets esp interesting with only a boolean interface. In the example above, having an active net connection would prevent my desktop from suspending, but what if another platform can maintain net connections while suspended? Do we then end up with arch specific code in the net-stack? I'm sure DaveM would love that. -- 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
