From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758371AbXGCVMm (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jul 2007 17:12:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751005AbXGCVMf (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jul 2007 17:12:35 -0400 Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([217.147.92.49]:57961 "EHLO vavatch.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750981AbXGCVMe (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jul 2007 17:12:34 -0400 Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 22:12:28 +0100 From: Matthew Garrett To: Alan Stern Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org Message-ID: <20070703211227.GA28758@srcf.ucam.org> References: <20070703202329.GA27927@srcf.ucam.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.12-2006-07-14 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mjg59@codon.org.uk Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH] Remove process freezer from suspend to RAM pathway X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Tue, 20 Jun 2006 01:35:45 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on vavatch.codon.org.uk) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 05:10:08PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > No, no -- you have it exactly backwards. Removing the freezer turns > STR into something _less_ like runtime suspend, because it adds the > requirement that devices must not automatically be resumed when an I/O > request arrives. But that's fine - "Are we undergoing a systemwide suspend" is an easy question to ask. Freezing processes instead means that most of those paths will never be tested. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org