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

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 03:00 -0700, Arve HjÃnnevÃg wrote:
> 2010/6/2 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 01:54 -0700, Arve HjÃnnevÃg wrote:
> >> No I want you to stop confusing low power idle modes with suspend.
> >
> > I think it is you who is confused. For power management purposes suspend
> > is nothing more but a deep idle state.
> 
> No, idle is transparent, suspend is not.

Which is where the problem is, it should be.

> Why would I add suspend blockers to the code I want to prevent running?

Because what you want might not be what others want. Suppose you're fine
with your torrent client/irc client/etc.. to loose their network
connection when you're not behind your desktop so you don't add suspend
blockers there.

Me, I'd be ready to administer physical violence if either of those lost
their connections when I wasn't around to keep the screen-saver from
kicking in.

This leads to having to sprinkle magic dust (and lots of config options)
all over userspace. Something that gets esp interesting with only a
boolean interface.

In the example above, having an active net connection would prevent my
desktop from suspending, but what if another platform can maintain net
connections while suspended? Do we then end up with arch specific code
in the net-stack? I'm sure DaveM would love that.


--
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/