Hi. Pavel Machek wrote: >> 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. No, that would only make things more confusing. What other kernel knob turns itself off like that? Even drop caches, which might be reasonably expected to do so, doesn't. Regards, Nigel _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
