Re: [PATCH] Input: Add ioctl to block suspend while event queue is not empty.

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>]

On Thursday, February 16, 2012, Paul Fox wrote:
> rafael j. wysocki wrote:
>  > On Tuesday, February 14, 2012, NeilBrown wrote:
>  > 
>  > > (or just keep this stuff out of the kernel and let a user-space daemon make
>  > > those decisions).
>  > 
>  > Which is never going to really work, IMHO.
>  > 
>  > Realistically, do you know of any distro, vendor, whoever, who tried to
>  > actually do that in a released product (or even in a release candidate,
>  > or milestone, or whatever different from a prototype running only on one's
>  > personal desktop)?  I don't.
> 
> well, depending on your decision of "that", there are something like
> 2.5 million OLPC XO laptops that do it.  do they count?  ;-)
> 
> we're still in the middle of converting our 2.6-era home-grown power
> management mechanisms to the 3.0-era level, using the
> .../power/wakeup[_count] and /sys/power/wakeup_count mechanisms. 
> (change comes slowly to shipping products.)  but we do have a
> user-level suspend manager.
> 
> to the real point of your question:  no, i don't think it does what
> you're talking about yet -- i.e., control by applications over whether
> suspend should be permitted or not exists, but isn't nearly as
> reliable or as foolproof as any of the mechanisms discussed here
> recently.

OK, cool!

I was wrong then, but good to hear that. :-)

Thanks,
Rafael