On Wed, 26 May 2010 14:55:31 +0200 Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Florian Mickler <florian@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Really, what are you getting at? Do you deny that there are programs, > > that prevent a device from sleeping? (Just think of the bouncing > > cows app) > > > > And if you have two kernels, one with which your device is dead after 1 > > hour and one with which your device is dead after 10 hours. Which would > > you prefer? I mean really... this is ridiculous. > > You almost always need to "hack" the mainline software for a > production system. So do it here as well. Make sure the hack is well > isolated and local. You can even submit it to the mainline, better as > a configuration option, _unless_ it is a *framework* that provokes > writing code in an ugly and unsafe way. > > ~Vitaly I don't think that the in-kernel suspend block is a bad idea. You could probably use the suspend-blockers unconditionally in the suspend framework to indicate if a suspend is possible or not. Regardless of opportunistic suspend or not. This way, you don't have to try-and-fail on a suspend request and thus making suspending potentially more robust or allowing for a "suspend as soon as possible" semantic (which is probably a good idea, if you have to grab your laptop in a hurry to get away). Cheers, Flo _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
