Hi! > I agree that the runtime scenario is a far more appealing one from an > aesthetic standpoint, but so far we don't have a very compelling > argument for dealing with the starting and stopping of userspace. The > use-cases that Google have provided are valid and they have an > implementation that addresses them, and while we're unable to provide an > alternative that provides the same level of functionality I think we're > in a poor position to prevent this from going in. Uhuh? "We have this ugly code here, but it works and we don't have better one, so lets merge it"? I don't really like this line of reasoning. I would not want to judge wakelocks here, but... "it works, merge it" should not be used as argument. And btw I do have wakelock-less implementation of autosleep, that only sleeped the machine when nothing was ready to run. It was called "sleepy linux". Should I dig it out? Major difference was that it only sleeped the machine when it was absolutely certain machine is idle and no timers are close to firing -- needing elimination or at least markup of all short timers. It erred on side of not sleeping the machine when it would break something. Still I believe it is better design than wakelocks -- that need markup/fixes to all places where machine must not sleep -- effectively sleeping the machine too often than fixing stuff with wakelocks all over kernel and userspace... Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
