Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, take three

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Alan Stern
Date: Thursday, August 12, 2010 - 4:40 am

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Felipe Contreras wrote:


That seems entirely reasonable, since opportunistic suspend is 
essentially a userspace facility.  Its in-kernel component is extremely 
small (and is already in mainline).


That isn't clear at all.  Certainly they must be implemented correctly 
in some parts of userspace.  But other parts can simply be denied 
permission to use them.


Perhaps so.  Lots of things in userspace aren't straight-forward --
GUIs, for example.  So what?  That's not a proof they shouldn't be
used.


Agreed.  It is platform dependent.  The Google people seem to believe 
strongly they have not yet reached that point on their platforms.


You're ignoring the fact that Android has _already_ made the necessary
userspace changes.  Now you're going to ask them to change back,
offering as motivation the loss of a real (albeit "dubious")  
power-saving advantage?  Why should they accept your offer?

Alan Stern

--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, tak ..., Alan Stern, (Thu Aug 12, 4:40 am)
Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, tak ..., Felipe Contreras, (Thu Aug 12, 12:05 pm)
Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, tak ..., Rafael J. Wysocki, (Thu Aug 12, 8:28 pm)
Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, tak ..., Rafael J. Wysocki, (Fri Aug 13, 8:07 am)
Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, tak ..., Bernd Petrovitsch, (Mon Aug 16, 4:36 am)
Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, tak ..., Rafael J. Wysocki, (Tue Aug 17, 6:18 am)
Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, tak ..., Paul E. McKenney, (Tue Aug 17, 10:33 am)