> On Sunday 31 January 2010, Pavel Machek wrote: > > On Wed 2010-01-27 21:46:43, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > 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. > > > > So... you give them option to break back compatibility then blame it > > on them.... Yes, we could do it, but it is not good. > > > > And better alternative exists, where you make the option per-suspend > > so it does not have chance to break compatibility later. > > I'm not sure what you mean. Would you like it to reset itself during resume > or something like this? Yes, that or something similar would certainly help. 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
