Re: [PATCH 1/8] PM: Add suspend block api.

[Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>]

Hi!

> > > > Yeah, one file selects behavior of another file, and to read available
> > > > states for opportunistic, you have to write to file first.
> > > > 
> > > > I still don't like the interface.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Actually, what would be a better interface? 
> > > 
> > > I wonder why it is not like this:
> 
> Because I think the "forced" and "opportunistic" suspend "modes" are mutually
> exclusive in practice and the interface as proposed reflects that quite well.

Why should they be? Forced disk while opportunistic mem is active
makes a lot of sense. If code can't support it now, just return
-EINVAL, but please don't cripple the interface just because of that.

> > > /sys/power/state 
> > > 	no change, works with and without opportunistic suspend the
> > > 	same. Ignores suspend blockers. Really no change. (From user
> > > 	perspective)
> > > 
> > > /sys/power/opportunistic
> > > 	On / Off
> > > 	While Off the opportunistic suspend is off.
> > > 	While On, the opportunistic suspend is on and if there are no
> > > 	suspend blockers the system goes to suspend. 
> > > 
> > 
> > I forgot, of course there needs to be another knob to implement the
> > "on" behaviour  in the opportunistic mode
> > 
> >  /sys/power/block_opportunistic_suspend
> > 
> > There you have it. One file, one purpose. 
> 
> That's getting messy IMHO.
> 
> In addition to that you get a nice race when the user writes "mem"
> to /sys/power/state and opportunistic suspend happens at the same
> time.

It should not opportunistically suspend when it has work to do (like
entering forced suspend).
									Pavel

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html