Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)

Alan Stern
2010-05-27T17:04:27Z

On Thu, 27 May 2010, Felipe Balbi wrote:

> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 05:06:23PM +0200, ext Alan Stern wrote:
> >If people don't mind, here is a greatly simplified summary of the
> >comments and objections I have seen so far on this thread:
> >
> > The in-kernel suspend blocker implementation is okay, even
> > beneficial.
>
> I disagree here. I believe expressing that as QoS is much better. Let
> the kernel decide which power state is better as long as I can say I
> need 100us IRQ latency or 100ms wakeup latency.

Does this mean you believe "echo mem >/sys/power/state" is bad and
should be removed? Or "echo disk >/sys/power/state"? They pay no
attention to latencies or other requirements.

Alan Stern