From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 00:27:01 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: References: <20100527222514.0a1710bf@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <1275149418.4503.128.camel@mulgrave.site> <201006010024.00032.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <201006010024.00032.rjw@sisk.pl> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: tytso@mit.edu, Peter Zijlstra , LKML , Florian Mickler , James Bottomley , Linux PM , Linux OMAP Mailing List , felipe.balbi@nokia.com, Alan Cox List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 1 Jun 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Monday 31 May 2010, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > So that allows to use the same mechanism for more than the android > > sledge hammer approach and confines the controversial use cases into > > android specific files without adding a hard to maintain user space > > interface which would prevent or at least make it hard to do some of > > the above mentioned things which we want to see implemented. > > I generally agree. > > I think the Alan Stern's recent proposal goes along these lines, but it has > the advantage of being a bit more specific. ;-) Yes, Alan Stern's proposal is going into that direction and I'm not opposed. Just wanted to get the overall picture straight for James :) Thanks, tglx