On Thu, 27 May 2010 18:59:20 +0100 Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 07:56:21PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 18:52 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > > > If that's what you're aiming for then you don't need to block > > > applications on hardware access because they should all already have > > > idled themselves. > > > > Correct, a well behaved app would have. I thought we all agreed that > > well behaved apps weren't the problem? > > Ok. So the existing badly-behaved application ignores your request and > then gets blocked. And now it no longer responds to wakeup events. So > you penalise well-behaved applications without providing any benefits to > badly-behaved ones. I don't see how you put the first two sentences together and get the final one. When you beat up badly behaved apps that doesn't penalise well behaved ones. Forcing "well behaved apps" to make hundreds of extra calls to a complex blocker interface that also requires tons of kernel code and requires the application know platform policy and be recompiled if it changes - now that is punishing well behaved apps. A well behaved app should just work using standard existing APIs because that is how all the standard current well behaved apps are written [1]. Alan -- [1] I'm dying to see the suspend blocker patch for evolution ;) _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
