On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 17:40 +0200, Florian Mickler wrote: > On Wed, 26 May 2010 17:15:47 +0200 > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 17:11 +0200, Florian Mickler wrote: > > > I'm not saying that your argument is not valid. But why don't you look > > > at suspend blockers as a contract between userspace and kernelspace? An > > > Opt-In to the current guarantees the kernel provides in the non-suspend > > > case. > > > > That's backwards. > > I think that's the point of it. Apparently, and you're not accepting that we're telling you we think its a singularly bad idea. Alan seems to have the skill to clearly explain why, I suggest you re-read his emails again. _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
