2010/5/27 Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@xxxxxxxxx>: > 2010/5/27 Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@xxxxxxxxxxx>: >> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 6:16 AM, Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. >>> >>> The problem you have is that this is policy. If I have the device wired >>> to a big screen and I want cows bouncing on it I'll be most upset if >>> instead it suspends. >> >> We never suspend when the screen is on. If the screen is off, I would >> not be upset if it suspends. > > That's /wrong/. What if you have an active download ongoing when the > screen is off? This ugly simplistic approach is one of the worst > things in Android. On android we have code that blocks suspend while downloading. On non-android systems I have used if the download has not finished by the time the auto-sleep timeout kicks in, the system will suspend and the download halts. -- Arve Hjønnevåg _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
