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

[Alan Cox]

On Thu, 27 May 2010 19:17:58 +0100
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 08:06:38PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 18:59 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 07:56:21PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 18:52 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > If that's what you're aiming for then you don't need to block 
> > > > > applications on hardware access because they should all already have 
> > > > > idled themselves.
> > > > 
> > > > Correct, a well behaved app would have. I thought we all agreed that
> > > > well behaved apps weren't the problem?
> > > 
> > > Ok. So the existing badly-behaved application ignores your request and 
> > > then gets blocked. And now it no longer responds to wakeup events. 
> > 
> > It will, when it gets unblocked from whatever thing it got stuck on.
> 
> It's blocked on the screen being turned off. It's supposed to be reading 
> a network packet. How does it ever get to reading the network packet?

Thats a stupid argument. If you write broken code then it doesn't work.
You know if I do

	ls < unopenedfifo

it blocks too.

There is a difference between dealing with apps that overconsume
resources and arbitarily broken code (which your suspend blocker case
doesn't fix either but makes worse).

Can we stick to sane stuff ?
--
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/