On Wednesday 27 January 2010, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > 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. > > Yes, but existing apps do not know they have to sync. You are > essentially adding "break back compatibility" system wide option, when > better alternative exists... See above for concrete example where it > may hurt. I don't get what the problem is, really. There's _nothing_ here that breaks the existing behavior. If the user doesn't set the switch, everything works as usual. If he does, breaking the "back compatibility" is _his_ problem. Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
