On Sun, Aug 01, 2010 at 06:16:57PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Sun, 1 Aug 2010, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > I should have made a stronger point: "power-aware" is _not_ a good > > > term for these applications. "power-enabled" would be better but > > > still not ideal. Maybe "power-permitted"? The definition is that > > > they are _permitted_ to do something (acquire suspend blockers), not > > > that they actually _do_ something. > > > > How about "PM-driving applications", as Rafael suggested? > > Perhaps. But it's a little misleading, since what these applications > are permitted to do is to _prevent_ the system from going to low power. > So in a real sense they don't drive PM -- they block it. (Indeed, > that's what inspired the name "suspend blocker".) Of course, the same > objection applies to "power-permitted". Good point, but for the moment I would like to keep the number of classes of applications down to a dull roar, and so am proposing one class for applications that either actively control device/system power/sleep or prevent changes in same. I am of course open to improvements in the "PM-driving applications" name. ;-) > > > I was agreeing with the requirement but disagreeing with the reason > > > given for it. Even when buffers are large enough that the danger of > > > overrunning them is infinitesimal, delays in input event delivery are > > > still undesirable. > > > > > > Besides, the Android kernel doesn't vary its behavior based on whether > > > the recipient is power-permitted or power-naive; it _always_ delivers > > > input events in a timely fashion. > > > > True, the difference between the two classes of applications is in > > whether or not the application is permitted to process the event. > > > > I added "and to minimize response latencies" to the requirement. > > Does that capture it? > > Yes. Very good!!! > > > > But leaving that aside, I thought that Arve and Brian explicitly > > > > stated this as a requirement on power-aware applications -- one of the > > > > responsibilities that came with the power to block suspend. > > > > > > No. There are _no_ requirements on power-permitted (or power-aware if > > > you prefer) applications, other than that the user decides to give it > > > the appropriate permission. > > > > > > Internally, of course, Android may enforce this rule on their own > > > software. But it has no force in regard to external applications. > > > > So should this be moved to a new "ANDROID POLICY" section or some such? > > Or DESIRED BEHAVIOR, or some such. SUGGESTED USAGE? Thanx, Paul _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
