From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757652Ab0EEUJT (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 May 2010 16:09:19 -0400 Received: from mga12.intel.com ([143.182.124.36]:63527 "EHLO azsmga102.ch.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755638Ab0EEUJN (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 May 2010 16:09:13 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.52,335,1270450800"; d="scan'208";a="273749477" Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 13:09:06 -0700 From: mark gross To: Matthew Garrett Cc: Alan Stern , markgross@thegnar.org, Len Brown , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Kernel development list , Jesse Barnes , Oleg Nesterov , Tejun Heo , Linux-pm mailing list , Wu Fengguang , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 1/8] PM: Add suspend block api. Message-ID: <20100505200906.GA7450@linux.intel.com> Reply-To: mgross@linux.intel.com References: <20100504160346.GA27938@linux.intel.com> <20100505015050.GA30591@linux.intel.com> <20100505133131.GA24477@srcf.ucam.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100505133131.GA24477@srcf.ucam.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 02:31:31PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 06:50:50PM -0700, mark gross wrote: > > > In my sequence above I had the modem driver "magically" knowing to fail > > this suspend attempt. (that "magic" wasn't fully thought out though.) > > If the modem driver knows to "magically" fail a suspend attempt until it > knows that userspace has consumed the event, you have something that > looks awfully like suspend blockers. > > > There *has* to be a better way. > > But nobody has reasonably proposed one and demonstrated that it works. > We've had over a year to do so and failed, and I think it's pretty > unreasonable to ask Google to attempt to rearchitect based on a > hypothetical. > These are not new issues being raised. They've had over a year to address them, and all thats really happened was some sed script changes from wake_lock to suspend_blocker. Nothing is really different here. Rearchitecting out of tree code is as silly thing for you to expect from a community member. sigh, lets stop wasting time and just merge it then. I'm finished with this thread until I do some rearchecting and post something that looks better to me. I'll look for this stuff in 2.6.34 or 35. --mgross ps It think the name suspend blocker is worse than wake-lock. I'd change it back.