From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8) Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 17:19:43 +0100 Message-ID: <20100527161943.GA32764@srcf.ucam.org> References: <20100526133721.602633b2@schatten.dmk.lab> <20100526142430.327ccbc4@schatten.dmk.lab> <20100526141612.3e2e0443@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20100527003943.07c17f85@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20100527140655.GA28048@srcf.ucam.org> <20100527155201.GA31937@srcf.ucam.org> <20100527171615.15a1fd3d@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:44220 "EHLO cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751777Ab0E0QUB (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 May 2010 12:20:01 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100527171615.15a1fd3d@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Cox Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Arve =?iso-8859-1?B?SGr4bm5lduVn?= , Florian Mickler , Vitaly Wool , Peter Zijlstra , LKML , Paul@smtp1.linux-foundation.org, felipe.balbi@nokia.com, Linux OMAP Mailing List , Linux PM On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 05:16:15PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > I can't speak for Thomas, but I'm certainly not arguing that you don't > need something that looks more like the blocker side of the logic *in > kernel*, because there is stuff that you want to express which isn't tied > to the task. Sure, if you're not using opportunistic suspend then I don't think there's any real need for the userspace side of this. The question is how to implement something with the useful properties of opportunistic suspend without without implementing something pretty much equivalent to the userspace suspend blockers. I've sent another mail expressing why I don't think your proposed QoS style behaviour provides that. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org