On Wed 2010-01-27 01:51:03, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday 26 January 2010, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > > > > The ideal behavior would be: > > > > > > > > > > > > if(disk is spun up) > > > > > > then let the sync happen > > > > > > > > > > I'm not against that. Patch welcome. :-) > > > > > > > > I'd say such knob would be ugly. > > > > > > Define "ugly", please. > > > > Per-system property, which should better be > > per-program-that-requires-suspend. You request suspend without syncing > > (you want it quick, battery is 90%), then the battery runs low, and > > system daeomn requests s2ram, not realizing that someone disabled sync > > from under him. > > I really prefer a per-system setting. The program that wants to sync anyway > can easily do that by itself. Well, existing programs expect existing behaviour... Programs that do not want to sync can easily do it themselves, too, without afecting rest of system. > > > Nope. > > > > Nope what? > > > > AFAICT no new interface is needed. Just do SNAPSHOT_FREEZE, then > > _S2RAM then _UNFREEZE. > > That's not quite straightforward and I wouldn't seriously suggest that to > anyone. Three ioctls, seems pretty much ok. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
