On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 08:18:49PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Thu, 27 May 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > Actually, the reverse - there's no terribly good way to make PCs work > > with scheduler-based suspend, but there's no reason why they wouldn't > > work with the current opportunistic suspend implementation. > > How does that solve the problems you mentioned above ? Wakeup > guarantees, latencies ... Latency doesn't matter because we don't care when the next timer is due to expire. Wakeup guarantees can be provided via the suspend blocker implementation. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
