On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Monday 17 May 2010, Brian Swetland wrote: >> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Monday 17 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: >> >> >> >> It should get out of that loop as soon as someone blocks suspend. If >> >> someone is constantly aborting suspend without using a suspend blocker >> >> it will be very inefficient, but it should still work. >> > >> > Well, the scenario I have in mind is the following. Someone wants to check >> > the feature and simply writes "opportunistic" to /sys/power/policy and "mem" to >> > /sys/power/state without any drivers or apps that use suspend blockers. >> > >> > How in that case is the system supposed to break out of the suspend-resume loop >> > resulting from this? I don't see right now, because the main blocker is >> > inactive, there are no other blockers that can be activated and it is next to >> > impossible to write to /sys/power/state again. >> >> I guess we could set a flag when a suspend blocker is registered and >> refuse to enter opportunistic mode if no blockers have ever been >> registered. >> >> It does seem like extra effort to go through to handle a "don't do >> that" type scenario (entering into opportunistic suspend without >> anything that will prevent it). > > I agree, but I think it's necessary. We shouldn't add interfaces that hurt > users if not used with care. > I'm not sure this can be "fixed". The user asked that the system to suspend whenever possible, which is what it is doing. I don't think disabling opportunistic suspend if no suspend blockers have been registered will work. As soon as we register a suspend blocker we are back in the same situation. -- Arve Hjønnevåg _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
