On Wed, 26 May 2010 17:47:35 +0200 Florian Mickler <florian@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 26 May 2010 17:45:00 +0200 > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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. > > I'm sorry if I offend you. I indeed read Alan's emails. It's just they > have more content than yours. So it takes longer. > > Cheers, > Flo p.s.: also they encourage me to think more before answering. _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
