From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753282Ab1JCIha (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Oct 2011 04:37:30 -0400 Received: from earthlight.etchedpixels.co.uk ([81.2.110.250]:44408 "EHLO www.etchedpixels.co.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752769Ab1JCIhY (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Oct 2011 04:37:24 -0400 Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 09:32:26 +0100 From: Alan Cox To: markgross@thegnar.org Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, John Stultz , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , arve@android.com, Alan Stern , amit.kucheria@linaro.org, farrowg@sg.ibm.com, "Dmitry Fink (Palm GBU)" , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, khilman@ti.com, Magnus Damm , mjg@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org Subject: Re: [markgross@thengar.org: Re: [RFC] wake up notifications and suspend blocking (aka more wakelock stuff)] Message-ID: <20111003093226.2b5e9c4d@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20111002164849.GE14312@mgross-G62> References: <20111002164849.GE14312@mgross-G62> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.9 (GTK+ 2.24.4; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Face: 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 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 09:48:49 -0700 mark gross wrote: > Forwarding to bigger group for discussion. Looks clean enough - only question I have is do we need a separate 'suspend block' or can latency do it -suspend is a very very high latency event. I guess the suspend block is clearer in intent than abusing latency but I do wonder if the actual suspend path should also check latency constraints too. If I've asked for 5mS latency then suspend is a wrong choice! Alan