From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Florian Mickler Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8) Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 13:37:21 +0200 Message-ID: <20100526133721.602633b2@schatten.dmk.lab> References: <1274482015-30899-1-git-send-email-arve@android.com> <201005242049.18920.rjw@sisk.pl> <87wrusvrqe.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> <201005250138.16293.rjw@sisk.pl> <1274863655.5882.4875.camel@twins> <1274867106.5882.5090.camel@twins> <20100526120242.5c9b73ad@schatten.dmk.lab> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Vitaly Wool Cc: Peter Zijlstra , LKML , Paul@smtp1.linux-foundation.org, felipe.balbi@nokia.com, Linux OMAP Mailing List , Linux PM List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 26 May 2010 13:18:51 +0200 Vitaly Wool wrote: > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Florian Mickler wrote: > > >> So why again was this such a great scheme? Go fix your userspace to not > >> not run when not needed. > > > > Hi Peter! > > > > This was already mentioned in one of these threads. > > > > The summary is: The device this kernel is running on dosn't want to > > (or can) rely on userspace to save power. This is because it is an open > > system, without an app-store or the like. Everyone can run what he > > wants. > > I don't see this as a valid point. Everyone can run a different kernel > where nothing will just work. Are you aiming protection against that > as well? > > ~Vitaly This is not "protection". This is functioning properly in a real world scenario. Why would the user change the kernel, if the device would be buggy after that? (Except maybe he is a geek) Cheers, Flo