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 19:15:33 +0100 Message-ID: <20100527181533.GH3543@srcf.ucam.org> References: <20100527173118.GE2468@srcf.ucam.org> <1274981680.27810.5636.camel@twins> <20100527174019.GA3187@srcf.ucam.org> <20100527190515.08be091a@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]:41694 "EHLO cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934418Ab0E0SPu (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 May 2010 14:15:50 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100527190515.08be091a@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Cox Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner , Alan Stern , Paul@smtp1.linux-foundation.org, LKML , Florian Mickler , felipe.balbi@nokia.com, Linux OMAP Mailing List , Linux PM On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 07:05:15PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > I'd prefer we avoided mixing them up. Everyone seems fairly happy with > the current operator ordered suspend behaviour I believe ? No. The current mechanism can lose wakeup events. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org