Re: [linux-pm] Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Sun, Aug 01, 2010 at 03:38:34PM -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> > > > I should have made a stronger point:
> > "power-aware" is _not_ a good
> > > > term for these applications. 
> 
> Strongly disagree.  The whole point is that they
> ARE VERY MUCH AWARE and interact with a power
> policy to achieve goals.
> 
> Like refusing to power down active subsystems,
> or actively powering down inactive ones.
> Q.E.D. ... "aware".

My initial thoughts was along the same lines as yours, but after thinking
about it, the distinction between an application that controls its own
behavior ("power-aware application") and an application that controls the
system's behavior ("PM-driving application") seemed well worth its weight.

							Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/