From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/10] Input: Hold wake lock while event queue is not empty. Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 00:06:17 +0100 Message-ID: <200902140006.18420.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <1234316955-31304-7-git-send-email-arve@android.com> <20090213005704.GA8721@srcf.ucam.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090213005704.GA8721@srcf.ucam.org> Content-Disposition: inline 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: linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org Cc: ncunningham@crca.org.au, u.luckas@road.de, swetland@google.com, Arve@smtp1.linux-foundation.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Friday 13 February 2009, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 04:52:22PM -0800, Arve Hj=F8nnev=E5g wrote: > = > > That was not the bug. Another component opened one of the input > > devices, but did not read events from it. > = > It's not the job of the kernel to guard against userspace doing foolish = > things. Amen. > Either you want to wait for input events to be consumed before = > suspend or you don't - arbitrary timeouts provide no guarantees about = > the correctness of your platform's behaviour. The default permissions on = > the event devices mean that the only components that could interfere = > with this are ones under your control, so fixing them seems like the = > sensible approach. This is exactly my point, but I couldn't find words to say it so clearly. Thanks, Rafael