Re: [PATCH 0/6] [RFC] Proposal for optimistic suspend idea.

[John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>]

On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 02:09 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011, John Stultz wrote:
> > Another use case I've heard about are systems that have firmware updates
> 
> Yes, I have heard about people wanting O_PONIES ...

O_PONIES_WITH_HEADMOUNTED_WOODCUTTING_LASERS?

> > that are remotely triggered. Should the system go into suspend while the
> > firmware update is going on, you end up with a brick.
> 
> If someone came up with a firmware update mechanism which is not
> coping with unexpected interruption of any kind, then wakelocks are
> not making any difference.
> 
> Please collect the resulting bricks and shove them back to those who
> thought that remote firmware updates do not have to be engineered and
> the resulting fallout can be blamed on the kernel.
> 
> We have proper mechanisms in place to handle such stuff, but they need
> proper overall design and definitely a bit more brain usage than just
> yelling "wakelock".

And it would be great if some of that brain usage was spent to review
and critique what I'm actually proposing, rather then just yelling
"wakelock". :P

I apologize for being probably too verbose in my mails, but I did
originally admit that the firmware update issue is a simpler problem and
doesn't necessarily need the same solution as the races around my
nightly backups. But I do think that some thought should be put into the
different use cases that seem to desire similar things, so that an
appropriate design can be created, instead of a collection of short-term
hacks.

More brain usage, and proper design. At least with that, I think we
agree. :)

thanks
-john