From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8) Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 20:08:53 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Stern Cc: Matthew Garrett , Peter Zijlstra , LKML , Florian Mickler , felipe.balbi@nokia.com, Linux OMAP Mailing List , Linux PM , Alan Cox List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 27 May 2010, Alan Stern wrote: > On Thu, 27 May 2010, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > Crap. Stop beating on those lost wakeup events. If we lose them then > > the drivers are broken and do not handle the switch over correctly. Or > > the suspend mechanism is broken as it does not evaluate the system > > state correctly. Blockers are just papering over that w/o tackling the > > real problem. > > That's the point -- suspend does not evaluate the system state > correctly because it doesn't have the necessary information. Suspend > blockers are a way of providing it that information. They don't paper > over the problem; they solve it. Nonsense. The system state is well defined when a event is pending and we just have to say good bye to the idea that forced suspend is a good solution. It's not as it does not guarantee the event processing in badly written apps and it does move the power consumption to a later point in time for those apps which acquire/drop the blockers. Thanks, tglx