Hi Rafael! On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 21:01:53 +0200 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Monday, June 28, 2010, Alan Stern wrote: > > On Mon, 28 Jun 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> > Subject: PM: Make it possible to avoid wakeup events from being lost I have nothing substantial to add, but just wanted to let you know that this approach seems like a good alternative to me. As far as I can see the userspace suspend-blocker interface could be expressed in terms of this kernel facility which brings android closer to mainline. The only thing I haven't thought through yet is the 'maintain a discrete set of constraints' vs 'just increment a number' thing. Especially if what we loose in information through that (in comparison to 'the other approach') is made up for by easier in-kernel-API. I _think_ if there is any need for in-kernel-accounting (i don't know that) it could be retro-fitted by using the trace event infrastructure? Cheers, Flo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
