On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 03:51:40PM -0800, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: > On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > It's not the job of the kernel to guard against userspace doing foolish > > things. > > Not true. The kernel in general tries to protect processes from > causing harm to other processes or to the kernel itself. Harm, yes. This isn't harm. It's undesirable, in the same way that an application taking a wake lock and then spinning until your battery runs out is undesirable. It's not the kernel's job to prevent that. > > Either you want to wait for input events to be consumed before > > suspend or you don't - arbitrary timeouts provide no guarantees about > > the correctness of your platform's behaviour. The default permissions on > > the event devices mean that the only components that could interfere > > with this are ones under your control, so fixing them seems like the > > sensible approach. > > We did fix the bug. My point is that is it completely unreasonable for > the user space to code take more than 5 seconds to read an input > event. Trying to protecting the system (not the app) against this is > not unreasonable. Completely unreasoable *in your use case*. The kernel doesn't exist to satisfy only your use case - it has to satisfy as many as possible. That's why hardcoding policy decisions such as this timeout is a bad idea. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
