On Wed, 26 May 2010 14:55:31 +0200
Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@gmail.com> wrote:

quoted text
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Florian Mickler <florian@mickler.org> wrote:
> 
> > Really, what are you getting at? Do you deny that there are programs,
> > that prevent a device from sleeping? (Just think of the bouncing
> > cows app)
> >
> > And if you have two kernels, one with which your device is dead after 1
> > hour and one with which your device is dead after 10 hours. Which would
> > you prefer? I mean really... this is ridiculous.
> 
> You almost always need to "hack" the mainline software for a
> production system. So do it here as well. Make sure the hack is well
> isolated and local. You can even submit it to the mainline, better as
> a configuration option, _unless_ it is a *framework* that provokes
> writing code in an ugly and unsafe way.
> 
> ~Vitaly

I don't think that the in-kernel suspend block is a bad idea. 

You could probably use the suspend-blockers unconditionally in the
suspend framework to indicate if a suspend is possible or not.
Regardless of opportunistic suspend or not. This way, you don't have to
try-and-fail on a suspend request and thus making suspending
potentially more robust or allowing for a "suspend as soon as
possible" semantic (which is probably a good idea, if you have to grab
your laptop in a hurry to get away).

Cheers,
Flo
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/