> > > On Mon, 3 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: > > > > > >> No, suspend blockers are mostly used to > ensure wakeup events are not > > >> ignored, and to ensure tasks triggered by > these wakeup events > > >> complete. > > > > > > Standard Linux systems don't need these, > > > > If you don't want to lose wakeup events they do. > Standard Linux systems > > support suspend, but since they usually don't have a > lot of wakeup > > events you don't run into a lot of problems. Yes and no... stick a bunch of USB hubs and devices on the system, and you may have a lot of wake events. Keyboard, mouse, network adapter, and so on. Way back when I made USB remote wakeup work, ISTR running into a version of the issue you're raising. Briefly, the wake event could be queued in hardware, but there were also various unavoidable races .... with ambiguity about just when particular events should be recognized. If the system entered sleep before the wake event(s) triggered, or the relevant devices suspended first, then things were clear; otherwise, not. On first blush, I'd expect every hardware wake mechanism would have the same issues; the fact that USB wakes are mediated via khubd is not a huge difference. _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
