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

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Thu, 27 May 2010, Alan Stern wrote:

> On Thu, 27 May 2010, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> 
> > Crap. Stop beating on those lost wakeup events. If we lose them then
> > the drivers are broken and do not handle the switch over correctly. Or
> > the suspend mechanism is broken as it does not evaluate the system
> > state correctly. Blockers are just papering over that w/o tackling the
> > real problem.
> 
> That's the point -- suspend does not evaluate the system state 
> correctly because it doesn't have the necessary information.  Suspend 
> blockers are a way of providing it that information.  They don't paper 
> over the problem; they solve it.

Nonsense. The system state is well defined when a event is pending and
we just have to say good bye to the idea that forced suspend is a good
solution. It's not as it does not guarantee the event processing in
badly written apps and it does move the power consumption to a later
point in time for those apps which acquire/drop the blockers.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/