On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:48:58AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Matthew Garrett <mjg@xxxxxxxxxx> [100511 10:25]: > > On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:24:43AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > > > For the failed suspend path in the kernel, currently the kernel would > > > unwind back all the drivers because of the failed driver, but that path > > > should be possible to optimize. > > > > If you think it's possible to make this work then feel free to. But at > > the point where you're adding code to every driver's suspend function to > > determine whether or not it's got any pending events that userspace > > hasn't consumed yet, and adding code to every bit of userspace to allow > > it to indicate whether or not it's busy consuming events or just busy > > drawing 3D bouncing cattle, I think you've reinvented suspend blocks. > > Sorry, I have a working system that idles nicely and stays up on > batteries for a long time while running. I don't need to implement > anything like this :) Right, but your system will only idle nicely if all of your userspace is well-written. It's not reasonable to expect that all userspace will be well-written and thus it's necessary to implement a power management strategy that doesn't require that. Refusing an implementation that achieves that on the basis that there's hypothetically a better way of doing it is entirely unreasonable. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
