Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)

[Felipe Balbi]

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 05:06:23PM +0200, ext Alan Stern wrote:
> If people don't mind, here is a greatly simplified summary of the
> comments and objections I have seen so far on this thread:
>
> 	The in-kernel suspend blocker implementation is okay, even
> 	beneficial.

I disagree here. I believe expressing that as QoS is much better. Let 
the kernel decide which power state is better as long as I can say I 
need 100us IRQ latency or 100ms wakeup latency.

--
balbi

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