On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 14:56 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Still, can you please read this post from Alan Stern: > > https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/linux-pm/2007-June/012847.html > > ? I don't think I'm able to repeat the arguments given in there in a > convincing way. As I read it, Alan basically has two objections: (1) drivers shouldn't need to worry about this (2) suspend should be transparent to userspace His proposed solution (freezing tasks when they cross the kernel boundary) helps for the s-t-r case, but in fact doesn't solve (1) because devices can be suspended at runtime and then you certainly do not want to freeze tasks that try to access the device. (2) is related but not identical, what if you have a device suspended at runtime and some tasks tries to access it; should the task block until you wake up that device? I think the core of the discussion isn't appreciated by everybody here yet---we need to solve both run-time and suspend-to-ram-time device suspend, not just one of them. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
