From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: syncing the disks when entering sleep Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 21:46:43 +0100 Message-ID: <201001272146.43660.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <76FA3B279DD9DA48896E2B404944957204E0B241@USA7061MS02.na.xerox.net> <201001270151.03241.rjw@sisk.pl> <20100127095532.GA12752@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20100127095532.GA12752@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> 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: Pavel Machek Cc: linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, "Leisner, Martin" List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 27 January 2010, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > Per-system property, which should better be > > > per-program-that-requires-suspend. You request suspend without syncing > > > (you want it quick, battery is 90%), then the battery runs low, and > > > system daeomn requests s2ram, not realizing that someone disabled sync > > > from under him. > > > > I really prefer a per-system setting. The program that wants to sync anyway > > can easily do that by itself. > > Yes, but existing apps do not know they have to sync. You are > essentially adding "break back compatibility" system wide option, when > better alternative exists... See above for concrete example where it > may hurt. I don't get what the problem is, really. There's _nothing_ here that breaks the existing behavior. If the user doesn't set the switch, everything works as usual. If he does, breaking the "back compatibility" is _his_ problem. Rafael