From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755489Ab0EZPPv (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 26 May 2010 11:15:51 -0400
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:49607 "EHLO
	bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1755035Ab0EZPPu (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 26 May 2010 11:15:50 -0400
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Florian Mickler <florian@mickler.org>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@gmail.com>,
       LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Paul@smtp1.linux-foundation.org,
       felipe.balbi@nokia.com,
       Linux OMAP Mailing List <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>,
       Linux PM <linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20100526171106.0e44a736@schatten.dmk.lab>
References: <1274482015-30899-1-git-send-email-arve@android.com>
	 <201005242049.18920.rjw@sisk.pl> <87wrusvrqe.fsf@deeprootsystems.com>
	 <201005250138.16293.rjw@sisk.pl> <1274863655.5882.4875.camel@twins>
	 <AANLkTinN6MKvCEhPkbYQRD2gu-mGXdNW9asRsTuKN3_Y@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1274867106.5882.5090.camel@twins>
	 <20100526120242.5c9b73ad@schatten.dmk.lab>
	 <AANLkTim4021cTnhVZrQpefq1MG-eEPOFLDRO-XDepHb4@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20100526133721.602633b2@schatten.dmk.lab>
	 <AANLkTikzgaOFdQKess4E-D86OLPOzxP3dWiDkU_UR0ri@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20100526142430.327ccbc4@schatten.dmk.lab>
	 <20100526141612.3e2e0443@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
	 <20100526171106.0e44a736@schatten.dmk.lab>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 17:15:47 +0200
Message-ID: <1274886947.1674.1757.camel@laptop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 17:11 +0200, Florian Mickler wrote:
> I'm not saying that your argument is not valid. But why don't you look
> at suspend blockers as a contract between userspace and kernelspace? An
> Opt-In to the current guarantees the kernel provides in the non-suspend
> case.

That's backwards.