On Tue, 8 Jun 2010, david@xxxxxxx wrote: > > having suspend blockers inside the kernel adds significant complexity, it's > worth it only if the complexity buys you enough. In this case the question is > if the suspend blockers would extend the sleep time enough more to matter. As > per my other e-mail, this is an area with rapidly diminishing returns as the > sleep times get longer. Well, the counter-argument that nobody seems to have brought up is that suspend blockers exist, are real code, and end up being shipped in a lot of machines. That's a _big_ argument in favour of them. Certainly much bigger than arguing against them based on some complexity-arguments for an alternative that hasn't seen any testing at all. IOW, I would seriously hope that this discussion was more about real code that _exists_ and does what people need. It seems to have degenerated into something else. Because in the end, "code talks, bullshit walks". People can complain and suggest alternatives all they want, but you can't just argue. At some point you need to show the code that actually solves the problem. Linus _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
