On Saturday 15 May 2010, Brian Swetland wrote: > On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > > >> > Yes, "excruciatingly bad" apps can kill PM on these systems since > >> > anyone can write apps, but the same is true on an opporunistic-suspend > >> > based system since any app could hold a suspend blocker whenever it > >> > wants. > >> > >> No, apps need permission to block suspend. > > > > Are you referring to the fact the permissions of the special device file or > > something different? > > The special device file will have filesystem permissions that limit > access to system services. > > Arbitrary userspace apps do not have direct access to the device -- > they use a service (provided by binder rpc), and the app must declare > its intent (and the user accept this on install) in order to use that > service. On Android, right? > The service keeps track of usage stats so if a user > experiences poor battery life they can look at the battery usage thing > and see which apps are keeping the device awake, etc. That sounds like it should go into a doc or at least into the changelog of patch [2/8] IMnsHO. The thing you said about timers in one of the previous messages should be documented too, BTW, because it's one of the motivation factors for this work. In general, I think the motivation is not explained sufficienty in the patches' changelogs and that's one of the reasons why people have so many doubts about the feature's usefulness. Thanks, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
