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

Matthew Garrett
2010-05-27T18:23:23Z

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 08:18:49PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 27 May 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Actually, the reverse - there's no terribly good way to make PCs work
> > with scheduler-based suspend, but there's no reason why they wouldn't
> > work with the current opportunistic suspend implementation.
>
> How does that solve the problems you mentioned above ? Wakeup
> guarantees, latencies ...

Latency doesn't matter because we don't care when the next timer is due
to expire. Wakeup guarantees can be provided via the suspend blocker
implementation.

--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org