Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)

[Alan Stern]

On Thu, 27 May 2010, Felipe Balbi wrote:

> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 05:06:23PM +0200, ext Alan Stern wrote:
> >If people don't mind, here is a greatly simplified summary of the
> >comments and objections I have seen so far on this thread:
> >
> >	The in-kernel suspend blocker implementation is okay, even
> >	beneficial.
> 
> I disagree here. I believe expressing that as QoS is much better. Let 
> the kernel decide which power state is better as long as I can say I 
> need 100us IRQ latency or 100ms wakeup latency.

Does this mean you believe "echo mem >/sys/power/state" is bad and
should be removed?  Or "echo disk >/sys/power/state"?  They pay no
attention to latencies or other requirements.

Alan Stern

--
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/