From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758645Ab0EMVVl (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 May 2010 17:21:41 -0400 Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:37638 "EHLO cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753389Ab0EMVVi (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 May 2010 17:21:38 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 22:21:08 +0100 From: Matthew Garrett To: Tony Lindgren Cc: Alan Stern , Paul Walmsley , Arve =?iso-8859-1?B?SGr4bm5lduVn?= , Linux-pm mailing list , Kernel development list , Tejun Heo , Oleg Nesterov , Kevin Hilman , magnus.damm@gmail.com, "Theodore Ts'o" , mark gross , Arjan van de Ven , Geoff Smith , Brian Swetland , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Beno=EEt?= Cousson , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, Vitaly Wool , Mark Brown , Liam Girdwood Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 6) Message-ID: <20100513212108.GA22103@srcf.ucam.org> References: <20100513191717.GA3428@atomide.com> <20100513192522.GA19256@srcf.ucam.org> <20100513194205.GC3428@atomide.com> <20100513195349.GB19722@srcf.ucam.org> <20100513200003.GE3428@atomide.com> <20100513200814.GA20254@srcf.ucam.org> <20100513202320.GF3428@atomide.com> <20100513203412.GA21244@srcf.ucam.org> <20100513211006.GG3428@atomide.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100513211006.GG3428@atomide.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mjg59@cavan.codon.org.uk X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on cavan.codon.org.uk); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 02:10:06PM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Matthew Garrett [100513 13:29]: > > And if that's the application that's listening to the network socket > > that you want to get a wakeup event from? This problem is hard. I'd love > > there to be an elegant solution based on using the scheduler, but I > > really don't know what it is. > > Your system should wake up to an interrupt in that case. Then you have > the trusted apps running that can decide if the untrusted apps should > be continued or not. What race-free mechanism do you use to ensure that? It's very easy to handwave these problems away. It's very difficult to actually write an implementation that works. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org