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 18:59:20 +0100 Message-ID: <20100527175920.GE3543@srcf.ucam.org> References: <20100527171644.GA2468@srcf.ucam.org> <1274980856.27810.5582.camel@twins> <20100527172510.GC2468@srcf.ucam.org> <1274981288.27810.5609.camel@twins> <20100527173218.GF2468@srcf.ucam.org> <1274981750.27810.5641.camel@twins> <20100527174140.GB3187@srcf.ucam.org> <1274982397.27810.5679.camel@twins> <20100527175258.GB3543@srcf.ucam.org> <1274982981.27810.5719.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1274982981.27810.5719.camel@twins> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Alan Cox , Arve =?iso-8859-1?B?SGr4bm5lduVn?= , Florian Mickler , Vitaly Wool , LKML , Paul@smtp1.linux-foundation.org, felipe.balbi@nokia.com, Linux OMAP Mailing List , Linux PM List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 07:56:21PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 18:52 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > If that's what you're aiming for then you don't need to block > > applications on hardware access because they should all already have > > idled themselves. > > Correct, a well behaved app would have. I thought we all agreed that > well behaved apps weren't the problem? Ok. So the existing badly-behaved application ignores your request and then gets blocked. And now it no longer responds to wakeup events. So you penalise well-behaved applications without providing any benefits to badly-behaved ones. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org