On Thu, 2008-01-24 at 11:46 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > Its pretty intrusive I'd say. And it is wrong; we'd prefer userspace > > to know what we are doing; if they are told we are suspending, > > userspace may be able to do something more clever than long console > > switch. > > > > I'd prefer this not to go into mainline. > > So you'd prefer mainline to be broken and X to lock up ? nice ! > > The console switch happens -anyway- with the current code right ? So we > aren't changing that. Mind you, that's the (only!) other alternative: removing the in-kernel console switch completely which is the only way to allow userspace to do something "more clever than long console switch". > However, (even today I believe), users of /dev/apm_bios, such as X, will > deadlock the VT subsystem if they get notified of the suspend before the > kernel initiated console switch happen (which can happen today if the > suspend is triggered by an APM application I -think- (to be verified) Yeah I'm pretty sure that can happen, but in fact, that will happen regardless of this patch until my other patch is applied. 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
